Measures of the EU Agri-Environmental Protection Scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 213-227

  Tahvanainen, Liisa ^a   Ihalainen, Marjut ^a   Hietala Koivu, Reija ^b   Kolehmainen, Osmo ^a   Tyrväinen, Liisa ^a   Nousiainen, Ismo ^a   Helenius, Juha ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^b FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Agri environmental programme; Agricultural landscape; Buffer strip; Landscape preferences; Pairwise comparisons

Indexed keywords

REFORESTATION; RURAL AREAS;

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM; AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES; BUFFER STRIP; ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS; FINNISH; LANDSCAPE PREFERENCES; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON; PROTECTION SCHEMES; RURAL LANDSCAPES; SCENIC BEAUTY;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL LAND; FARMERS ATTITUDE; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; RURAL LANDSCAPE; VISUAL ANALYSIS;

AFFORESTATION; AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT; AGRICULTURAL WORKER; AGRICULTURE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; BUILDING; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROP MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ESTHETICS; EUROPEAN UNION; FINLAND; HUMAN; LANDSCAPE; LANDSCAPING; POLICY; QUALITY CONTROL; RURAL AREA; WATER FLOW; WATER MANAGEMENT; WETLAND;

FINLAND;

EID: 0036827872     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)90489-5     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Alho, J. M., Kangas, J. and Kolehmainen, O. (1996). Uncertainty in expert predictions of the ecological consequences of forest plans. Applied Statistics 45, 1-14.
2. Alho, J. M. and Kangas, J. (1997). Analyzing uncertainties in experts' opinions of forest plan performance. Forest Science 43, 521-528.
3. Alho, J., Kolehmainen, O. and Leskinen, P. (2001). 'Regression methods for pairwise comparisons data'. In The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resources and Environmental Decision Making. (D. Schmoldt, J. Kangas, G. Mendoza, and M. Pesonen, eds), Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers (to appear).
4. Anderson, L. M. (1981). Land use designations affect perception of scenic beauty in forest landscapes. Forest Science 27, 392-400.
5. Arthur, L. M. (1977). Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests. Forest Science 23, 151-160.
6. Benson, R. E. and Ullrich, J. R. (1981). Visual impacts of forest management activities: Findings on public preferences. USDA, Forest Service, Research Paper INT-262. 14 pp.
7. Brown, T. C. and Daniel, T. C. (1986). Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science 32, 471-487.
8. Brunson, M. and Shelby, B. (1992). Assessing recreational and scenic quality. How does New Forestry rate? Journal of Forestry 90, 37-41.
9. Cook, P. S. and Cable, T. T. (1995). The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Landscape and Urban Planning 32, 63-69.
10. Crawford, G. and Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29, 387-405.
11. Daniel, T. C. and Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Research paper PM-167. 67 pp.
12. De Jong, P. (1984). A statistical approach to Saaty's scaling method for priorities. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28, 467-478.
13. Hackett, B. (1971). Landscape planning: an introduction to theory and practice. England: Oriel Press. 124 pp + illustration.
14. Hietala-Koivu, R., Tahvanainen, L., Nousiainen, I., Heikkilä, T., Alanen, A., Ihalainen, M., Tyrväinen, L. and Helenius, J. (1999). A Visual Landscape in the Monitoring of the Agri-Environmental Programme. Publications of the Agricultural Research Centre of Finland. Series A. 27+appendixes. ISBN 951-729-536-7.
15. Hull, R. B., Buhyoff, G. J. and Daniel, T. C. (1984). Measurement of scenic beauty: the law of comparative judgment and scenic beauty estimation procedures. Forest Science 30, 1084-1096.
16. Jensen, F. S. (1993). Landscape managers' and politicians' perception of the forest and landscape preferences of the population. Forest and Landscape Research 1, 79-93.
17. Johnson, R. L., Brunson, M. W. and Kimura, T. (1994). Using image-capture technology to assess scenic value at urban/forest interface: a case study. Journal of Environmental Management 40, 183-195.
18. Kangas, J., Laasonen, L. and Pukkala, T. (1993). A method for estimating forest landowner's landscape preferences. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8, 408-417.
19. Kangas, J., Alho, J., Kolehmainen, O. and Mononen, A. (1998). Analysing consistency of experts' judgments-case of biodiversity. Forest Science 44, 610-617.
20. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology No. 140. Columbia University Press.
21. Luostarinen, M. and Olin, A. (1995). Landscape and environmental management as part of the rural development. Results of the Delphoi study. Finnish Agricultural Research Centre. Report 5. 34 pp. (In Finnish with English summary.)
22. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (1996). Maatalouden ympäristöohjelma 1995-1999 (Agri-Environmental Program). Progress report 2.9.1996. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1996/18. Helsinki. 41 pp + appendixes. (In Finnish.)
23. Ministry of Environment (1992). Arvokkaat maisemaalueet (Valuable landscape regions). Landscape working party. Report II. Ministry of Environment 1992/66. 204 pp. Helsinki. (In Finnish.)
24. Moser, C. A. and Kalton, G. (1979). Survey methods in social investigation. London: Heinemann Educational Books. 555 pp.
25. Nousiainen, I. and Pukkala, T. (1992). Use of computer graphics for predicting the amenity of forest trails. Silva Fennica 26, 241-250.
26. Nousiainen, I., Tyrväinen, L. and Tahvanainen, L. (1998). Maaseutumaiseman muutos ja peltojen metsitys-kolmen maakunnan mielipiteet. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry. 14 pp. (In Finnish.)
27. Paquet, J. and Belanger, L. (1997). Public acceptability thresholds of clearcutting to maintain visual quality of boreal balsam fir landscapes. Forest Science 43, 46-55.
28. Pukkala, T. (1988). Methods to incorporate the amenity of landscape into forest management planning. Silva Fennica 22, 135-146.
29. Pukkala, T., Kellomäki, S. and Mustonen, E. (1988). Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 3, 533-544.
30. Ronningen, K. (1993). Agricultural policies aid landscape management. Some examples from Norway, Great Britain and Germany. Norsk geogr. Tidsskr. 47, 93-104.
31. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal Mathematical Psychology 15, 234-281.
32. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, PriorySetting. New York: McGraw Hill 287pp.
33. Savolainen, R. and Kellomäki, S. (1981). Scenic value of forest landscape. Acta Forestalia Fennica 170, 1-75.
34. Schroeder, H. and Daniel, T. C. (1981). Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science 27, 71-80.
35. Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L. and Nousiainen, I. (1996). Effect of afforestation on the scenic value of rural landscape. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 11, 397-405.
36. Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N. and Kolehmainen, O. (2000). Forest management and public perceptions-verbal versus visual information. Landscape and Urban Planning 759, 1-18.
37. Tammi, and Helenius, J. (1998). Miten suojakaistoja tulisi hoitaa? In: Ajankohtaisia kasvinsuojeluohjeita I. Markkula (ed.). Kasvinsuojeluaseman julkaisuja 91, 24-26. (In Finnish.)
38. Tyrväinen, L. and Tahvanainen, L. (1999). Using computer graphics for assessing the aesthetic value of large-scale rural landscapes. Scandinavian Journal Forest Research 14, 282-288. F