This thesis in Human Geography aims to identify and analyze the values which imply an heritage process through the words and actions of its actors. To associate a forest with values, to launch an heritage process does not mean only to set it as a protected area where the exceptional character of this area is acknowledged. This process cannot be reduced to official protection, preserving from human activities some elements considered as remarkable: more and more common areas and elements are equally owned by different social groups, specialists just as much as amateurs. With this regards, the forest of Landes de Gascogne constitutes a good example of heritage process of a common and ordinary forest, with nothing "remarkable" at first sight, at least according to the usual criteria of institutional natural heritage. This artificial forest has a production purpose and is privatized for its vast majority. Therefore, this forest has always been more or less pointed out for its intensive exploitation, questioning its ability to circulate values outside economic ones, and even the legitimacy of its status as a forest. Nevertheless, and however its production purpose is its first determination, this forest is also carrying cultural, natural and sensible values which generate a willingness of preservation going beyond, or even confronting the simple economic concern. The last storm in January 2009, Klaus, enabled to unveil and catalyze those valued, which, in front of such an event, became clearer. To consider the heritage process of this forest as a whole, shared between nature and culture, also allows pondering over the idea of natural heritage in itself and the process behind. This thesis has been written thanks to the analysis of a hundred of semi-structured interviews of different actors of the forest (private and public areas, elected representatives, local communities, Regional Natural Parc, associations) and realized according to a double-scale analysis (from the whole forest scale to the more localized analysis of four different field studies).
