The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation the role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 62, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 119-138

  Franco, Daniel ^a,c   Franco, Davide ^b   Mannino, Ilda ^a   Zanetto, Gabriele ^b  

^a CA' FOSCARI UNIVERSITY OF VENICE   (Italy)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

^c NONE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Agroforestry; GIS; Landscape; Landscape preferences; Networks; Scenic beauty (SB); Spatial pattern analyses

Indexed keywords

DRAINAGE; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ECOSYSTEMS; FORESTRY; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; SEWAGE LAGOONS;

SCENIC BEAUTY (SB) ESTIMATION;

URBAN PLANNING;

AGROFORESTRY; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES; ESTHETICS; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; PERCEPTION;

ITALY;

EID: 0346667172     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00127-5     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Appleton, J., 1975. The Experience of Landscape. Wiley, London.
2. Arler, F., 2000. Aspects of landscape or nature quality. Landscape Ecol. 15, 291-302.
3. Bell, S., 1995. Visual Landscape Design Training Manual. Ministry of Forests, Canada Recreation Branch Publication.
4. Bell, S., 1999. Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process. E & FN Spon, London.
5. Bishop, I.D., Hulse, D.W., 1994. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information system. Landsc. Urban Plan. 30, 59-70.
6. Bourassa, S.C., 1991. The Aesthetic of Landscape. Belhaven Press, London.
7. Brouwer, C., 1996. Managing to hold our coastal paradise. In: Proceedings of 33rd IFLA World Congress, Firenze, Italy.
8. Brunson, M.W., Reiter, D.K., 1996. Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. J. Environ. Manage. 1 (46), 31-41.
9. Burel, F., Baudry, J., 1995. Social, aesthethics and ecological aspects of hedgerows in rural landscape as a framework for greenways. Landsc. Urban Plan. 33, 327-332.
10. Burel, F., Baudry, J., 1999. Ècologie du paysage. Concepts, méthodes ed applications. Ed. TEC&DOC, Paris.
11. Daniel, T.C., Boster, R.S., 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-167.
12. Daniel, T.C., 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21th century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1-4 (54), 267-281.
13. Fahring, L., Merriam, G., 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66, 1762-1768.
14. Forman, R.T.T., 1995. Land Mosaic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15. Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M., 1986. Landscape Ecology. Wiley, New York.
16. Franco, D., 1997. La procedura PLANLAND©®: un nuovo strumento per l'analisi e la progettazione paesistica. Acer, 1/97-Acer,3/97.
17. Franco, D., 1998. Hedgerows and non point source pollution: field test and landscape planning. In: Dover, J.W., Bunce, R.G.H. (Eds.), Key Concepts in Landscape Ecology. IALE UK Colin Cross Printers Ltd., Garstang, UK.
18. Franco, D., 2000. Paesaggio, retiecologiche ed agroforestazione. Il Verde Editoriale, Milano.
19. Franco, D., Mannino, I., Zanetto, G., 2001. The agroforestry networks role in the landscape socio-economic processes: the potentiality and limits of contingent valuation method. Landsc. Urban Plan. 4 (55), 239-256.
20. Franco, D., 2002. An analyses of the agroforestry network planning in the landscape amelioration process: the scale and pattern influences on the hedgerow networks' effect on landscape processes. Environmental Management and Health (in litteris).
21. Gregory, K.J., Davis, R.J., 1993. The perception of riverscape aesthetics: an example from two Hampshire rivers. J. Environ. Manage. 3 (39), 171-187.
22. Gustavson, E.J., 1998. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art? Ecosystem 1, 143-156.
23. Hudson W.E. (Ed.), 1991. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press, USA.
24. Hunziker, M., 1995. The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands: perception and esthetical assessment by local and tourists. Landsc. Urban Plan. 31, 399-410.
25. Hunziker, M., Kienast, F., 1999. Potential impacts of changing agricultural attributes activities on scenic beauty - a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landsc. Ecol. 2 (14), 161-176.
26. Kaplan S., Kaplan R., 1982. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in a Uncertain World. Praeger Publisher, New York.
27. Kellomaki, S., Savolainen, R., 1984. The scenic value of forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landsc. Plan. 11, 97-107.
28. Lamb, R.J., Purcell, A.T., 1990. Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 19, 333-352.
29. Lange E., Bishop I. (Eds.), 2001. Our Visual Landscape: Analysis, Modelling, Visualization and Protection. Special Issue. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54, 1-4.
30. Lyons, E., 1983. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environ. Behav. 15, 487-511.
31. Mannino, I., Franco, D., Zanetto, G., 2001. Reti ecologiche agroforestali e processi paesaggistici: la valutazione socio-economica. Estimo e territorio 1 (64), 22-28.
32. Nassauer, J.I., 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc. Ecol. 4 (10), 229-237.
33. O'Neill, J., Walsh, M., 2000. Landscape conflicts: preferences, identities and rights. Landsc. Ecol. 15, 281-289.
34. Purcel, A.T., 1992. Abstract and specific physical attributes and the experience of landscape. J. Environ. Manage. 3 (34), 159-177.
35. Schroeder, H.W., 1986. Estimating park tree densities to maximise landscape aesthetics. J. Environ. Manage. 23, 325-333.
36. Scrinzi, G., Floris, A., Flaminj, T., Agatea, P., 1996. Un modello di stima della qualità estetico-funzionali. Genio Rurale 4 (59), 57-79.
37. Selman, P., Doar, N., 1992. An investigation of the potential for landscape ecology to act as a basis for rural land use plans. J. Environ. Manage. 35, 281-300.
38. Shama S., 1995. In: Alfr. A. (Ed.), Landscape and Memory. Knopf, New York.
39. Silvennoinen, H., Alho, J., Kolehmainen, O., Pukkala, T., 2001. Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landsc. Urban Plan. 56, 11-20.
40. Soriani S., Vallerani F., Zanetto G., 1996. Nature, environment, landscape: European attitudes and discourses in the modern period: the Italian case, 1920-1970, Padova, Dipartimento di Geografia, Quaderni. 18.
41. Stamps A.E., 2000. Psychology and the Aesthetics of the Built Environment. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Norwel, MA.
42. Stamps, A.E., 2001. Evaluating enclosure in urban sites. Landsc. Urban Plan. 57, 13-24.
43. Tempesta, T., Crivellaro, M., 1999. La valutazione del paesaggio rurale tramite indici estetico visivi. Estimo e territorio. 4 (62), 50-63.
44. Turco, A., Zanetto, G., 1992. Environment, perception, strategies of intervention: a case study of Venice. In: Corna-Pellegrini, G. (Ed.), Humanistic and Behavioural Geography in Italy, Pisa, Pacini, 1992, 217-230.