2.3. land use footprints - european environment agency › publications › 92-9157-202-0 ›...

6 9Land use footprints

2.3. Land use footprints

1. Land, a limited resource, under pressure

European landscapes are – in all senses – ahuman environment. The land provides thespatial context for, and also bears the im-pacts of, human activities. Each of the factorsdiscussed previously in Chapter 2.2 (such aspopulation change, urbanisation, industriali-sation, transport and tourism, changes inworld commodity prices, agriculture andforestry) may impact upon land use. Landcover is usually modified as a consequence ofchanges in land use, which may result fromsocio-economic or natural drivers or as aconsequence of national or EU policies (seeBox 2.3.1).

Human activity is responsible for manyvalued features of the European landscape,but also for growing pressures on the land(Map 2.3.1).

At its most extreme, misuse of the land canlead to environmental catastrophe, with lossof human life and economic disruption (seefor example the Campania landslide CaseStudy, Chapter 3.8). Irreversible land chan-ges led to major flooding incidents through-out Central, West and South Europe in 1997and 1998, exacerbated by developments suchas soil sealing (see also Chapter 3.6) and thestraightening of rivers to facilitate drainageand transport. Map 2.3.2 illustrates for themajor watersheds in Europe the area cov-ered by urban fabric, road infrastructure,

Box 2.3.1 Definitions

Land is defined as the surface of the solid Earth,together with superficial vegetation cover, builtfeatures and associated water surfaces, bothfreshwater and marine.

Land use describes the land surface from thesocial perspective; it is characterised by someidentifiable purpose, or purposes, leading totangible or intangible products or benefits.

Land cover is the description of the physicalsurface cover (e.g. grass, trees, rocks, buildings,water…).

Land use and land cover are inter-dependent:changes in land use, which come about as aresult of many of the socio-economic factors,impact directly on land cover.

industrial and commercial sites. The majorwatersheds in Europe with more than 5 % ofthe total surface covered by built-up area aremainly located in NW Europe (e.g. Rhine,Thames, Meuse, Scheldt, Weser, Elbe).

The intensifying pressures of urban develop-ment are illustrated by figure 2.3.1, which

400

200

100

0

Belgium

bui

lt up

are

a (m

2 ) /

per

son

500

300

600

Denmar

k

Luxe

mbourg

France

German

y

The Neth

erlands

Austria

Irelan

dIta

ly

Greece

Spain

Portugal

Figure 2.3.1Average of total artificialised surface (buildings,

industrial and commercial areas, transportinfrastructure) per inhabitant.

Source: EEA, Eurostat

ForestAgriculture

United

King

dom

0.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

Belgium

Denmar

k

Irelan

d

France

German

y

Italy

The Neth

erlands

Spain

% o

f cha

nge

of s

urfa

ce

2.0

-2.0

4.0 Luxe

mbourg

-10.0

-12.0

Source: FAO

Figure 2.3.2Changes in agriculture and forest land, 1970-1990

Societal developments and use of resources7 0

30˚ 20˚ 10˚ 0˚ 10˚ 20˚ 30˚ 40˚ 50˚

60˚

50˚

40˚

30˚

20˚10˚0˚

30˚

40˚

50˚

60˚

N o r w e g i a n S e a

N o r t hS e a

A r c t i c O c e a n

At

la

nt

ic

Oc

ea

n

TyrrhenianSea

I o n i a nS e a

Ba

l ti c

Se

a

Adr iat ic Sea

Aegean

Sea

C h a n n e l

WhiteSe

a

B a r e n t s

S e a

M e d i t e rr

an

e a n S e a

B l a c k

S e a

forestsand semi-natural areas

Pressuresby urban areas

and transport network

0 500 km

pressure areas

other areas

Map 3.2.1

The represented pressureareas on the map (in red)

indicate the presence or riskof impact on semi-natural

and natural areas (in green).


shows that average built-up area per persontends to be higher in the more prosperousEU countries than in the peripheral regions.

2. Land and landscapes under significant changes

European landscapes have often beenconsidered stable, timeless and changing soslowly that the effects are almost undetect-able over long periods. In reality, the abilityof modern society to change its surround-

ings has proven to be wide ranging, deepand the consequences can be rapid. Pres-sures arise from a combination of localpressures and driving forces that are exter-nal to the local landscape.

Agriculture is the main form of land useand has had a crucial role in the develop-ment of European landscapes (Figure2.3.2). Changes in the commercial realitiesfacing farmers can lead to damagingchanges: for example, stone or earthterraces may fall into disrepair, leading to


erosion and even to loss of farming poten-tial, and threats can arise to the livinglandscape characterised by pollarded andcoppiced trees, small and irregular fields,farm woodlands and hedgerows, a diversemosaic of land uses, and traditional rotationpatterns, including ley and fallow.

The past decades have also seen continuingtrend towards urbanisation across Europe,together with increasing dispersal andsprawling of urban settlements with declin-ing urban population densities, greater

requirements for infrastructure. The conse-quence has been a significant growth inurban land and reduction of natural andsemi-natural land. Map 2.3.3 shows theregional variation in the amount of naturaland semi-natural area per inhabitant, juxta-posed to Map 2.3.4 illustrating the distribu-tion of remaining natural and semi-naturalareas in proportion to agricultural land andurban areas (see also Chapters 3.6 and 3.12).

The picture that emerges from land-coverchange analysis is one of an extremely

6˚ 7˚

6˚ 7˚

50˚50˚

51˚ 51˚

0 50 km

Built-up land by sub-rivercatchment area

Meuse

Rhine

Mos

el

Built-up land by majorriver catchment area

0 500 km

more than 20%

10 – 20%

5 – 10%

2 – 5%less than 2%

urban areas

boundariesof catchment areas

Map 2.3.2


Duero

Tagus

Ebro

Guadiana

Garonne

R

hô

ne

Loire

SeineM

euse

Thames

Rhine

Elbe

Oder

Warta

Danube

Inn

VistulaPripyat

Dnieper

Dnieper

Boh

Neman

Olt

Ti

sa

Drava

Sava

D

a nube

Danube

Drina Maritsa

Dniester

D esna

Lake

Ladoga

Vo

lga

Daugava

Glom

ma

Indalsälven

Skellefteälven

Luleälven

Turneälven

Ke

mijo

ki

Pechora

Prut

Lake

Onega

Sukh

ona

Dvina

LakeVänern

LakeVättern

Po

Lake

Saimaa

Lake

Paijanne

Tiber

Büyük Men

dere

s

30˚ 20˚ 10˚ 0˚ 10˚ 20˚ 30˚ 40˚ 50˚

60˚

50˚

40˚

30˚

20˚10˚0˚

30˚

40˚

50˚

60˚


N o r t hS e a

A r c t i c O c e a nA

tl

an

ti

cO

ce

an

TyrrhenianSea

I o n i a n

S e a

Ba

l ti

cS

ea

Adr iat ic Sea

Aegean

Sea

C h a n n e l

WhiteSea

B a r e n t s

S e a

M e d i t e rr

an

e a n S e a

B l a c k

S e a

Map 2.3.2



30˚ 20˚ 10˚ 0˚ 10˚ 20˚ 30˚ 40˚ 50˚

60˚

50˚

40˚

30˚20˚10˚0˚30˚

40˚

50˚

60˚

N o r t hS e a


At

la

nt

ic

Oc

ea

n

M e d i t e r r a n e a n S e a

C h a n n e l

0 1000 km

high

low

Ratio of forestand semi-natural areas

to agricultureand urban areas

more than 1.81.4 – 1.81.0 – 1.40.6 – 1.00.2 – 0.6less than 0.2

Map 2.3.4


30˚ 20˚ 10˚ 0˚ 10˚ 20˚ 30˚ 40˚ 50˚

60˚

50˚

40˚

30˚20˚10˚0˚30˚

40˚

50˚

60˚

N o r t hS e a


At

la

nt

ic

Oc

ea

n


C h a n n e l

more than 2.5

Forest and semi-naturalarea per inhabitant

0 1000 km

1.0 – 2.5

0.5 – 1.0

0.25 – 0.50.1 – 0.25

less than 0.1

Area in ha/inhabitant

Map 2.3.3


dynamic landscape, primarily shaped byman. Interestingly, the average annual rateof land-cover changes tends to be quite smallbut the cumulation results in dramaticchanges at local or regional scale. Map 2.3.5shows the importance of changes in coastalareas during the past 50 years for the area ofZeebrugge at the Belgian coast. This areahas experienced a yearly average change ofless then 1% since 1930, resulting in a totalarea land change of over 50% by 1995. (Formore information on changes in coastalareas, see also Chapter 3.14). Currentstatistical tools at European level do not yetallow us to pick up such changes in a system-atic way.

Increased economic wealth and socialexpectations will continue to be powerfulforces for change throughout Europe.Today, most of the EU countries have at least80% of their territory given over to ‘produc-tive’ uses like agriculture, forestry, urbancentres, transport and industry, leaving alimited margin for further uses. Plannedextensions to the motorway network willincrease the total length by more than12 000 km within the next 10 years. And a5% increase in urban population will,according to present trends, require anequal increase in the take of urban land.Figure 2.3.3 shows projected changes in the‘productivity’ of land in the EU countriesbetween 1990 and 2010.

These challenges are being exacerbatedbecause people are leaving new ‘footprints’on the environment and the economicpressure on land is likely to be furtherincreased by the eastward expansion of theEU. Of course, the pressure on land re-sources do not fall uniformly: 74% of thepopulation of Europe is concentrated inonly 15% of its land surface and zones inclosest proximity to existing conurbationsare, in general, those under greatest pres-sure from intensification of land use. How-ever, there has been a remarkable tendencysince the 1950s for a dispersal and sprawlingof urban settlements, causing new hot spotsto emerge (see Box 2.3.3).

3. The influence of EU Policies

Policies explicitly relating to land-use issues,and especially physical planning, measures,have generally been the responsibility of theauthorities in member states, rather than theEU which does not have an explicit compe-tence in that area. Nevertheless, EU policies


and legislation generate powerful forces forchange in land use and land cover. Theirpotential to influence land use across Eu-rope is extensive. There is a very real dangerthat inadvertent and unforeseen damage canarise from EU initiatives in areas such asregional development, transport, environ-mental protection, agriculture and forestry.

EU regional and rural development policiesare now increasingly directed towardscreating alternative opportunities thatincorporate integrated environmentalsafeguards (see Chapter 3.13).

EU environmental protection legislation canalso exert a major influence on land use.Here, the principal impacts come fromDirectives in the areas of EnvironmentalImpact Assessment, water management (thenew Water Framework Directive, see Chapter3.5) and nature protection policies. Natureprotection influences land use mainlythrough measures designed to conservespecies and habitats by the designation of‘Special Protection Areas’ (Birds Directive)or ‘Special Areas of Conservation’ (HabitatsDirective). Given that nature protectionnetworks such as Natura 2000, designated bythe member states, may eventually cover asmuch as 10% of the land area of the EU,these legislative schemes are likely to provean important tool for the management ofEuropean land and landscape resources (seeChapter 3.11).

4. Implications of EU enlargement

Proposals for the future enlargement of theEU, as set out in the communication‘Agenda 2000 for a stronger and widerEurope’, are likely to lead to significant andoften unpredictable changes in land-usepatterns across the whole of the EU. Acrossthe EU, increased East-West trade willdemand expanded transport infrastructures.Trends are likely to result in loss of naturalland and the degradation of land in theproximity of centres of development. Agri-cultural systems in the Accession Countrieswill be exposed to competition from moreintensive practices in the West. Agriculture isthe dominant form of land use, over 55% oftotal land area on average in the Accessioncountries, and an important factor in shap-ing the countryside. Over the period 1989-1997, the total arable land has remainedrelatively stable or declined slightly duringtransition in most Central and EasternEuropean Countries. Overall, this is likely to

Land cover changesin coastal areas

0 5 km

continuous urban fabric

discontinuous urban fabric

industrial or commercialunits

road and rail networksand associated land

port areas

construction sites

green urban area

non-irrigated arable land

fruit trees and berryplantationpastures

complex cultivationpatterns

coniferous forest

natural grasslandand heathlandtransitional woodlandshrubbeaches, dunes

water courses

water surfaces

no data

Artificial surfaces

Agricultural areas

Forest and semi-natural areas

Water bodies

Case-study: area of Zeebrugge, Belgium

sport and leisure facilities

G E R M A N Y

F R A N C E

THENETHERLANDS

I T A L Y

N o r t hS e a

BELGIUM

LUXEMBOURG

SWITZERLANDAUSTRIA

MediterraneanSea

Zeebrugge

1995

1976

16.0% land cover changes (mean annual rate of change 0.84%)

1950


1930


Zeebrugge

B E L G I U M

Zeebrugge

B E L G I U M

Zeebrugge

B E L G I U M

Zeebrugge

B E L G I U M

No

r t hS e a

No

r t hS e a

No

r t hS e a

No

r t hS e a

Map 2.3.5

Source: CEO/JRC


0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

Austria

Belgo-Lu

xem

bourg

Econom

ic Unio

n

Denmar

k

Finland

France

German

y

Greece

Irelan

dIta

ly

The Neth

erlands

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

United

King

domEU15

Bill

ion

Eur

o/k

m2

Figure 2.3.3Changing intensity of land use in the EU between1990 and 2010 illustrated by the increase of GNPper unit area of land surface (euro/km2)

Source: Eurostat

The origins of the ESDPThe European Commission has been charting thespatial development of the Community territorysince 1989, with the launch of the Europe 2000programme of studies. The ministers responsible forspatial planning decided at their informal meeting inLiège (1993) to lay the groundwork for the EuropeanSpatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Furthermeetings led to the adoption of the first official draftin 1997 in Noordwijk, to be finalised in May 1999. InDecember 1997, the ministers launched a publicdebate based on this document and decided toprepare a further chapter on the territorial impact ofthe next enlargement of the Union, as well asconfirming their intention to create a EuropeanSpatial Planning Observatory Network.

ESDP and the role of Environmental and otherCommunity policiesFour main policy areas affect the development ofCommunity territory: the Common AgriculturalPolicy, regional and cohesion policy, policies linkedto trans-European networks in transport andtelecommunications, and environment policy. TheESDP examines both the achievements andinadequacies of these policies and draws attentionto risks relating to economic and social cohesionand environmental protection. Initial conclusionshighlight three main points to be addressed by anintegrated vision of the whole of the Europeanterritory:

- more balance geographical distribution ofproduction activities to correct present trendstowards concentration in the most competitiveareas;

- more sustainable land use to ensure appropriatechoices in terms of basic infrastructure in thelonger-term interest of the entire territory;

- greater sensitivity to specific territorial needs.

Some examples of some environmental objectivesconsidered within the ESDP:

• Better environmental protection. The ESDPinsists on the necessity of speeding up thecreation of the European ecology networkNatura 2000, drawing together protectedsites. It proposes to ensure appropriatemanagement of ecologically vulnerable areasor sites of exceptional biodiversity, as well aspromoting policies that reconcile themaintenance of the natural heritage with theeconomic development of rural areas.

• Careful management of water resources.The ESDP recommends shared management ofthe major water tables and of coastal waters topreserve them from pollution, to developmutual strategies against risk of flooding(particularly in the transnational river basins),the balancing of supply and demand forwater in areas prone to drought, and theprotection of wetland areas threatened withover-exploitation of water resources.

• Better exploitation of rural landscapes. Thesafeguarding of rural landscapes for theirbeauty, as well as cultural and historicalimportance, is not incompatible with economicdevelopment. The natural heritage requirescareful management in line with localconditions. This is often closely linked to themaintenance of agriculture, as farmers play acentral role in landscape management. Co-operation in this area will encourage thepreservation and good management of rurallandscapes, appropriate land-use policies andthe rehabilitation of landscapes which havebeen degraded as a result of human activity.

There is a risk of conflicting impacts resultingfrom divergent policy-making in different areasof European competence. Debate onEuropean spatial development should befocused on the potential of the ESDP tocontribute greater coherence to separateCommunity policies.

Box 2.3.2 The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) initiative

exacerbate existing trends towards intensifi-cation in the more productive areas anddecline in marginal regions.

5. A need for territorial policies

Land management and land planning areissues to be dealt with through coordina-tion between all levels: EU, national, theregions, and locally. Managing Europeanland resources needs therefore a share oflong-term perspectives, but final successdepends on regionally and locally experi-enced situations and actions. There is stillmuch that remains unknown, partly be-cause there is not yet a coordinated visionat the EU level for the future of landplanning and spatial planning activities.An integrated planning approach is re-


flected in the European Spatial Develop-ment Perspective, now under considera-tion by the Member States and the EU(Box 2.3.3). The success of such initiativeswill, in part, be determined by improvedaccess to information on land resources,especially in spatially-referenced forms.Such information will be of crucial impor-tance as a means to guide the formulationand performance analysis of spatial devel-opment policies which lies in many differ-ent, complex and interacting factorsinfluencing processes of change (seeFigure 2.3.4).

Driving forces

Pressures

State

Impacts

Land use changes

Socio-economic drivers

Land cover change footprint

Population changeChange in GDP

Transport developmentExpansion in tourismAgriculture & forestry

World commodity prices

Policy drivers

Regional developmentTransport policy

Energy policyAgriculture & forestry

Environmental protectionOther macro policies

Climate changeWater stress, floods, drought

UrbanisationLand abandonment

Agricultural intensificationAfforestation/deforestation

OvergrazingExtraction of minerals

Landscape degradationHabitat loss/disturbance

Biodiversity lossDamage to soil

Damage to water resources

Construction of :-transport networks

power stationswaste disposal sites

reservoirs

Habitat restorationBiodiversity gain

Groundwater protection

Land use/ land cover change impacts

ResponsesSpecies/Habitats Directive

Greening CAPNitrate Directive

Waste water DirectiveBiodiversity Strategy

Environmental ImpactAssessment Directive

Figure 2.3.4DPSIR for changes in land use and land cover

Box 2.3.3 Environmental hot spots in Europe

About the experiment to map hotspots in EuropeA geographical analysis of the coincidence ofenvironmental problems in Europe is dependent onthe availability of suitable, accessible and scientifi-cally robust pan-European data. Environmentalproblems manifest themselves at various geo-graphical scales; the currently available geographi-cal datasets mainly describe problems that are on acontinental or even global scale. Problems that arediffuse (e.g. agricultural pollution) or that occur at alocal scale (e.g. disposal of toxic waste) may bereported only at the Member State, or even localgovernment level, or not at all. For these localisedproblems little harmonised European data is avail-able. Consequently, the results shown on [Fig.HOTACC] largely reflect those environmental issuesthat have received greatest political attention (seealso Walker & Young, 1997, and Working Group onthe SEA of the TEN, 1998, for discussions on thelimitations of available data). These results alsoreflect the challenge of complexity for policy-makers.

Defining the coincidenceof environmental problemsThe pressure, state or impact data mapped hereaddress only seven EU policy areas of concern forwhich data were available: acidification andeutrophication; coastal issues; habitat loss;

tropospheric ozone increases; soil degradation;ultraviolet radiation caused by stratospheric ozonedepletion; and effects on freshwater resources.Additional data might reflect wider pressures andimpacts. Only geo-referenced data describingenvironmental impacts, pressures or states thatcovered all of the Member States, at the sub-national scale, were used. Data that did not reflectthe trans-boundary nature of environmentalproblems were not used. The EMEP150 grid(Hettelingh et al., 1991) was chosen as a base mapsince many of the available datasets were reportedat this scale.

First, thresholds were applied to each data layer toidentify environmental problems. The thresholdswere defined based on one of two criteria: policy orlegislative guidelines (for example, WHO air qualityguidelines (WHO, 1987, as quoted in Bosch et al.,1997)), or through the use of expert knowledgewhen such policy thresholds were not available.This resulted in policy or expert-based ‘problem’maps. Based on these results, each data layer wastransferred onto the EMEP150 grid by calculatingthe area within each cell occupied by the problem.

For each policy area the available grid layers werecombined to create a map showing where one ormore problems were occurring. The coincidence of

.../...


increasingcoincidence

Regional coincidenceof some environmentalpressures and impacts

(hot-spots)

0 500 km

Spatial coincidencein the EMEP 150 – grid

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Map 2.3.6

Source: EEA

30˚ 20˚ 10˚ 0˚ 10˚ 20˚ 30˚ 40˚ 50˚ 60˚

60˚

50˚

40˚

30˚

30˚20˚10˚0˚

30˚

40˚

50˚

60˚


N o r t hS e a


At

la

nt

ic

Oc

ea

n

B l a c k S e a

TyrrhenianSea

I o n i a nS e a

Ba

l ti c

Se

a


Adriat ic Sea

Aegean

Sea

C h a n n e l

WhiteSe

a

B a r e n t s

S e a

environmental problems was then defined byoverlaying these different policy area layers. Theresult of this analysis is shown in Map 2.3.6.

Interpretation: what the map tells usThis map shows us the extent of the urban‘footprint’ across the face of Europe. If we look forthe underlying driving forces and pressures (seeFigure 2.3.4) we see associated problems whichcould not appear on the map because of datarestrictions. For example, there is no ‘water quality’data layer. The map also shows us where to look forareas where environmental damage may bepreventable, repairable, or possibly beyond repair.

As urban population densities decrease, the actualnumbers of people in spreading urban areasincreases; this means that more land is taken up tosupply the demand for energy, water, foodproduction, leisure, and the transport networkswhich make all these things possible. So although‘traditional’ hot spots (areas of high metal, PAH andsulphur deposition, for example) may be less intenseand less frequent, ‘new’ hot spots of habitat loss andlong-term soil and water deterioration appear.

The map shows us that the accumulation ofproblems coincides with the density of transportroutes and industry in the UK, the Rhine-Ruhrcorridor and in France, Germany, and NorthernItaly. We see that industrial use of water, andcontinuing air pollution, in Germany and theNetherlands will contribute to the continuation ofacidification and the loss of freshwater resources. Ifindustrial technologies don’t change then theRhine-Ruhr corridor in particular will continue tosuffer from hazardous-substance emissions anddeposition: cadmium, dioxins, benz(a)pyrenes andpolychlorinated biphenyls, although these sub-stances are not mappable at this scale, at this time.

In the Mediterranean countries, where agriculture isthe highest consumer of water, and in the livestockareas of France, Germany, and Benelux, we seewidespread eutrophication. The Mediterranean coast,including the Athenian basin, and the Alps reflecttheir popularity as tourist destinations: seasonalfluctuations in demand for water and sewagetreatment, and the need for permanent roads foraccess, are reflected in the data of habitat loss, soildegradation, and coastal problems (on the seaboard).


ReferencesEuropean Commission, 1997. Agenda 2000: for astronger wider Union/EU, COM(97)2000.

EUROSTAT, 1996. Environment Statistics. EUROSTAT,Luxembourg.

Hettelingh, J.-P., Downing, R. J. & de Smet, (eds.),(1991). Mapping critical loads for Europe: CCEtechnical report No. 1. RIVM Report No. 259101001.Bilthoven, the Netherlands.

Posch, M., Hettelingh, J.-P., de Smet, P. A. M. &Downing, R. J., 1997. Calculation and mapping ofcritical thresholds in Europe: Status report 1997,Coordination center for effects. RIVM report No.259101007. Bilthoven, the Netherlands.

Walker, P. A. & Young, M. D., 1997. Using integratedeconomic and ecological information to improvegovernment policy. International Journal ofGeographical Information Science 11 (7).

WHO, 1987. Air quality guidelines for Europe. WHOregional publications, European series No. 23,Copenhagen, Denmark.

Further readingEuropean Commission, 1995. Communication onCohesion Policy and the Environment. (COM(95)509)

European Commission, 1998. The Reform of thecommon Agricultural Policy. (COM(98)157).

European Commission, 1998. Agricultural Situationand Prospects in the Central and Eastern EuropeanCountries – Summary Report. Working DocumentDGVI.

Council of the European Communities (1993). CouncilRegulation No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993, amendingRegulation (EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisionsfor implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/898 asregards the European Regional Development Fund.

Council of the European Union, 1994. CouncilRegulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994,establishing a Cohesion Fund.

Hille, J., 1997. The Concept of Environmental Space:Consequences for Policies, Environmental Reportingand Assessment’. Experts’ Corner, No. 1997/2.European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

Mortimer D., 1998. Current Land Management andStewardship Schemes in the EU and their implicationsfor Land Use, Working Paper n°1 UCL,London.Commission of the European Communities(1995). Communication on Cohesion Policy and theEnvironment. (COM(95)509).

2.3. land use footprints - european environment agency › publications › 92-9157-202-0 ›...

Documents