Landscape Analysis Sample Paper

Geography 101

Spring Semester 2007

David Snyder

This handout will provide you with a sample Landscape Analysis paper that I have written. You should note that I pretty much chose my photo at random, being one of the few human geography photos posted on my website, also that I threw this together in a single evening and finally that I have done no research into this location to further my knowledge beyond that which I already know (which was largely from tourist literature). Therefore, this is not an ideal example, but should serve to give you a good idea of what I am looking for and what sorts of information I would like to see discussed in your own papers. I have places notes in the right hand column for your benefit, but the paper itself was about 6.5 pages long (double-spaced, 12 pt. font, 1 inch margins). Photo and map follow the text.

Introduction The photo I have chosen to write about in one that was taken of me in August 2004 in the rural countryside of south-central France, specifically near the village of St. Nectaire in the Auvergne region. This photo contains three features that are key to understanding how this particular landscape (at this particular time) came to be. These are the grassy fields and adjacent patches of forest, the large rectangular boulder and me as a tourist. Several other features not seen in the photo, but important to understanding the landscape will be discussed in the main body. The Place The surrounding fields and forest seem on the surface to be a very typical European sort of landscape, and indeed, similar scenes could be located in places such as Germany, England, and even as far away as Russia. The reason for this is that most of Western Europe and Central Europe north of the Alps receive relatively similar amounts of rainfall throughout the year because the westerly winds arriving from over the Atlantic Ocean are unimpeded by mountain ranges, which would otherwise squeeze the moisture out of the air instead of allowing it to be carried across Europe. This location in the Auvergne does have a few differences that make it unique within Europe and which in turn have affected the human landscape here. The first major difference is the elevation above sea level, which is at about 3000 feet. Not considering the major mountain ranges, this is a relatively high elevation for Europe. This creates a climate regime of cooler temperatures, and with moisture arriving from the Atlantic Ocean, ample snowfall in winter. The reason for this relatively high elevation is that the Auvergne sits atop a volcanic plateau, created millions of years ago as southern France temporarily began to split apart. The rift not only created the Rhone River valley, but simultaneously poured millions of tons of basalt (lava) onto the surface, with piled up in an enormous dome, about 100 miles in diameter, now known as the Massif Central. The landscape is now littered with extinct volcanic craters often filled with lakes and other geologically interesting features. Most importantly for the humans who later moved into the region, the volcanic rock provided the land with very fertile soil. The Fields and Forests The fields that we are looking at reflect the environmental situation. They are principally used either for cooler weather crops, such as hay or potatoes, or are used for grazing animals. The fields in which I am standing are hay, and not seen in the photo, but common in the region are cows and sheep. Thus the fertile nature of the soil and the cooler climatic condition have, created a unique location in France that is used agriculturally in ways that are different in the rest of the country. One reason that this cooler location is habited is that because distinctive crops could be grown (or raised) here, these items could be traded with other regions of France. This allowed the locals to live within an economy based on trade, rather than just subsistence. As in most trading economies, the society’s living standards increased, thus allowing the population of the region to grow beyond that with it may have otherwise been. That being said, this region has traditionally been one of the poorer regions of France, but it has been growing wealthier due to an increased demand for beef. Because the population densities here are less than the rest of France, land is relatively cheap and because this is a good climate for grazing, the beef industry has been growing here in recent years. The demand for beef, of course, is one way in which this landscape – the fields in the picture – are tied to the global economy. Europe on the whole has been demanding more beef as living standards have been increasing, but because many areas are either too populated or the climatic conditions favor other crops, beef must often be imported from other continents. If the beef can be raised within Europe itself, prices in the market can go down. The fact that France is in the European Union, and no tariffs exist between European countries can only help the industry grow as beef can be exported to large markets in Italy, Germany and England as well as providing for the local French market. The trees located in the background are most likely natural to the region, being mostly oak and pine. They most likely serve several purposes. One is that they are probably boundaries between fields own by different people or that were at one time owned by different people. They may have served as barriers to prevent animals from wandering onto another farmer’s property. Additionally, they probably serve the more modern purpose of soil conservation, in that they help to hold the soil in place so that it doesn’t erode downstream during periods of heavy rainfall or flooding. Most of the original forest was obviously cut down centuries ago by humans seeking to take advantage of the agricultural potential of the land. The Rock The next interesting feature in the photo is the rectangular boulder. Prehistoric people carved this boulder out of the volcanic basalt sometime prior to 1000 B.C. These people preceded the pre-Roman Celtic civilization. This sort of carved rock is known as a menhir. Its purpose is largely unknown, but thousands of menhirs can be found throughout the French countryside. They most likely served as some kind of marker or monument. The menhir provides clear evidence that this region has been long inhabited by humans. After all, with ample moisture, fertile soil, and good basalt rock for construction, the Auvergne must have seemed like a reasonable place to settle. The people who raised the menhir were probably an agricultural people. One can make this educated guess because nomadic cultures generally do not erect permanent monuments, especially when they would take hundreds of hours to carve and would require a significant amount of manpower to move into place. These tasks are usually done by agricultural societies that have a food surplus with which to feed carvers and laborers and that intend to remain permanently in that location to make use of the monument. One interesting aspect of this menhir is that it is still here. Christians knocked down many menhirs in Europe during the last two millennia in their quest to destroy any remaining symbols of pre-Christian paganism. Many remain in the Auvergne, however. This could be because this region was relatively isolated compared to the more populated lowland river valleys of France and the power of the church here was never terribly strong. Without an organized effort, the menhirs were too heavy for a couple of farmers to move, and not large enough to be an impediment to growing crops or grazing animals. Therefore most farmers just didn’t care enough to do anything about them. It may even be that some aspects of earlier paganism remained as part of the culture until several hundred years ago, as was the case in a few other isolated locations in Europe. The Tourist This brings us to the final issue of discussion, which is to understand why an American tourist is standing happily next to this prehistoric monument that was most likely ignored or scorned by millennia of previous humans. To answer this relatively briefly I must break it down to a few key points. The first would be to understand the role of tourism in the global economy. Tourism is a purely luxury activity. Those who engage in tourism are usually from the middle or upper classes of the wealthiest countries on the planet, such as the United States, western Europe and Japan. These are people who have been able to benefit (by skill or luck) of the technologically advanced and efficient economies created by liberal capitalism and good governments. Thus, thanks to relatively cheap and rapid transportation (compared to the past), as well as a relatively large amount of expendable income (compared to most people on the planet), some people can easily travel to the far reaches of the planet. Tourism is entertainment, for all practical purposes. A person looks at objects in far away places much as one can watch a movie. One is simply more expensive than the other. Likewise a walk through the French countryside has no more intrinsic value than a walk to a neighborhood store. One is just more entertaining if the walker prefers novelty. Therefore, if someone has better things to do with their time or money, they don’t travel. Apparently this tourist has nothing better to do with his time or money than walk through the French countryside looking at menhirs. Beyond entertainment, tourism can also serve as a status symbol. One can seek to increase their social status at home by spending large amounts of money on traveling, much as others spend money on expensive cars. Others may seek to appear more intellectually sophisticated by traveling as tourists, if not wealthy. To some degree in modern American society, travel has been given a social value, perhaps as pilgrimages were in a former time. So why did this tourist come to this rather obscure location in France. After all, most tourists visit Paris, or maybe the beaches of the French Riviera, but are not particularly interested in looking at rocks in cow pastures. One reason is the fact that I am from Alaska, and while I harbor an intellectual interest in cities, I do not particularly enjoy spending a large amount of time in them. Nor do I enjoy herds of other tourists at typical ‘tourist destinations,’ so I actually seek out more obscure, yet interesting places to visit. Of course, being a geographer makes every place intrinsically interesting to me. Thus I am attracted to different landscapes, and the Massif Central had always stood out to me on a map (thanks to its high elevation), yet I had never known anyone to visit there. Because I discovered that many volcanic features could be seen on the landscape, making the decision to visit there was easy. Only after my arrival there, did I discover that prehistoric relics abounded in this region. I made a point of visiting many of them. The reasons for this can be traced back to the fact that I am an American of European heritage. Like many Americans, I feel somewhat disconnected with the past, unlike most people still in Europe. Therefore I have a keen interest in history. As a youth, I read many of the humorous Asterix comic books. The protagonists of these comics are a tribe of Gauls (Celts) in 50 B.C., who have yet to be conquered by the Romans. Menhirs figure prominently - if historically incorrectly - into the story. Because part of my formative years involved stories containing menhirs, I was thrilled, 25 years later, to be able to see some real ones, and was not disappointed. One might be able to read into this some sort of vague groping for a psychological connection to a fantastical history. People, at least Americans, often romanticize the past; imagining that “golden ages” were better or nobler than the world we live in today. Thus the popularity of American Westerns, historical epics or even the fact that some people seem to consider the 1950’s a better time. People also seek out historical connections to it by tracing their family trees or expressing pride if one of their forefathers engaged in a significant event (especially war). I’m not sure that I’m terribly susceptible to these things on an intellectual level, but subconsciously, it is likely that most people are susceptible to these thought patterns. Was I seeking a reconnection to the golden age of my youth or perhaps an idealic past? Might I also have been seeking a connection to ancient Europe and possibly some ancestors? Conclusion Thus, in this simple photo we see a landscape that because of its particular environmental conditions, has long affected by humans, both as prehistoric agriculturalists as well as modern farmers well connected to a wealthy global economy. The unifying theme represented by this photo is isolation. Isolation of the region from the mainstream culture and economy of Europe. Culturally speaking, while Catholicism came to the region, the remnants of the old religion were by and large left alone. Economically, this location is clearly in the periphery. Beef cattle tend to be raised in more marginal locations distant from the economic core regions. We also see a middle-class tourist taking advantage of this same global economy entertaining himself in his leisure time, although simultaneously possibly engaging in somewhat irrational psychological behavior, and perhaps seeking to increase his social status amongst his peers at home. Regardless, he chose this location for its relative isolation as well. What he was looking for was not something that could be found in Paris or its surrounding region.	You don’t need to label each section; I’m just doing it for convenience.
	Explanation of environmental factors that are important to understanding the human geography in the photo
	Connects the type of agricultural output to a role in a market capitalist economy.
	Connects economic conditions to population increase.
	Connects the region to its changing role in the global capitalist economy.
	How free trade may be affecting the local economy and therefore the local landscape.
	Issues of land ownership and territoriality. Could probably be discussed further.
	Connects modern environmental knowledge to the landscape.
	Connects the rock to the local geology.
	What the menhir tells us about the possible past human influences on the landscape and something about the kind of society they may have lived in. This is somewhat speculative, of course.
	Connects the presence of the menhir on the landscape to the history of religion and population density in the region.
	This is pure speculation on my part. Note that I acknowledge this by using the word ‘may’.
	Connects tourism to global economy and liberal capitalism.
	Further defines how tourism is merely a luxury that liberal capitalism has made possible for certain classes of society..
	Connects tourism to social behaviors in the home society.
	Connects similarities between this location and the influence of the tourist homeland on his preferred spatial environment.
	Connects the presence of the tourist to the physical environment of the location.
	Why a tourist would take an interest in visiting historical objects in their actual location, rather than just reading about them.
	This could probably be further expounded upon.
	Pretty basic conclusion, but I think it brings it all together in a reasonable way.

We can see that from a very basic photo displaying a field, some trees, a menhir and a tourist, we can develop a lengthy discussion concerning the role of this region in the world economy, the regional economy, it’s cultural significance, it’s past human environment, modern environmental concerns as well as topics of psychology, religion, free trade and tourism.

	Near St. Nectaire, France August 2004
	Map of France with the Auvergne encircled. Note the relatively high elevation of the Massif Central and the ability for the westerly winds to bring Atlantic moisture unimpeded to the region.