Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 98, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 99-109

  Lindemann Matthies, Petra ^a   Briegel, Reinhold ^a   Schüpbach, Beatrice ^b   Junge, Xenia ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b AGROSCOPE RECKENHOLZ TÄNIKON RESEARCH STATION ART   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Agro environment schemes; Perception; Preferences; Public; Simulated colour images; Sustainable agriculture

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ROBOTS; AGRICULTURE; BIODIVERSITY; SENSORY PERCEPTION; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

AGRO-ENVIRONMENTS; COLOUR IMAGE; PREFERENCES; PUBLIC; SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE;

LAND USE;

ADAPTATION; AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL LAND; ALPINE ENVIRONMENT; ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE; BIODIVERSITY; ECOLOGICAL IMPACT; ESTHETICS; GRASSLAND; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LAND USE CHANGE; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SUSTAINABILITY; TOURISM DEVELOPMENT; TOURIST DESTINATION;

AGRICULTURE; BIODIVERSITY; COLOR; ECOLOGY; FORESTRY; IMAGES; LAND USE; PERCEPTION;

ALPS; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 77957796046     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.015     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Aerni P., Rae A., Lehmann B. Nostalgia versus pragmatism? How attitudes and interests shape the term sustainable agriculture in Switzerland and New Zealand. Food Pol. 2009, 34:227-235.
2. Bardsley D., Thomas I. In situ agrobiodiversity conservation in the Swiss inner Alpine zone. Geojournal 2004, 60:99-109.
3. Baumgärtner J., Hartmann J. The design and implementation of sustainable plant diversity conservation program for alpine meadows and pastures. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2000, 14:67-83.
4. Bourassa S.C. The Aesthetics of Landscape 1991, Belhaven Press, London.
5. Breuste J.H. Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation within urban development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68:439-452.
6. Buijs A.E., Pedroli B., Luginbühl Y. From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: changing social perceptions of the European landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 2006, 21:375-389.
7. Butler S.J., Vickery J.A., Norris K. Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science 2007, 315:381-384.
8. Clergue B., Amiaud D., Pervanchon F., Lasserre-Joulin F., Plantureux S. Biodiversity: function and assessment in agricultural areas. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 25:1-15.
9. Cohen L., Manion L., Morrison K. Research Methods in Education 2007, Routledge, London. 6th ed.
10. Crawley M.J. Statistics. An Introduction Using R 2005, Wiley, Chichester.
11. Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54:267-281.
12. Daniel T.C., Meitner M.M. Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21:61-72.
13. Dramstad W.E., Fry G., Fjellstad W.J., Skar B., Helliksen W., Sollund M.-L.B., et al. Integrating landscape-based values-Norwegian monitoring of agricultural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 57:257-268.
14. Dramstad W.E., Tveit M.S., Fjellstad W.J., Fry G.L.A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78:465-474.
15. Eder K. The Social Construction of Nature 1996, Sage, London.
16. Egoz S., Bowring J., Perkins H.C. Tests in tension: form, function, and meaning in New Zealand's farmed landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 57:177-196.
17. European Environment Agency High Nature Value Farmland-Characteristics, Trends and Policy Challenges 2004, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
18. Ewald K.C. The neglect of aesthetics in landscape planning in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54:255-266.
19. Fischer M., Wipf S. Effect of low-grazing on the species-rich vegetation of traditionally mown subalpine meadows. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 104:1-11.
20. Flury C., Gotsch N., Rieder P. Socio-economic and ecological effects of alternative direct payment regimes on different Swiss alpine regions. Cah. Econ. Sociologie Rurales 2000, 57:5-26.
21. Flury C., Gotsch N., Rieder P. Site-specific and regionally optimal direct payments for mountain agriculture. Land Use Policy 2005, 22:207-214.
22. Gobster P.H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.C. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22:959-972.
23. Gould P., White R. Mental Maps 1986, Allen & Unwin, London.
24. Günter M., Schläpfer F., Walter T., Herzog F. Direct Payments for Biodiversity by Swiss Farmers: An Economic Interpretation of Direct Democratic Decision 2002, OECD, Paris, Retrieved August 20, 2009 from. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2001doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00000A36/$File/JT00120910.pdf.
25. Hehl-Lange S. Structural elements of the visual landscape and their ecological functions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54:105-113.
26. Herzog T.R. A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments. Landsc. Res. 1984, 9:10-16.
27. Herzog F., Birrer S., Derron J., Duelli P., Pearson S., Pfiffner L., et al. Artenvielfalt im Kulturland: Welchen Beitrag leisten ökologische Ausgleichsflächen?. Hotspot 2005, 11:8-9. (in German).
28. Hunziker M., Kienast F. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty-a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 14:161-176.
29. Hunziker M., Felber P., Gehring K., Buchecker M., Bauer N., Kienast F. Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Mt. Res. Dev. 2008, 28:140-147.
30. Jeanneret P., Schüpbach B., Pfiffner L., Herzog F., Walter T. The Swiss agri-environmental programme and its effects on selected biodiversity indicators. J. Nat. Conserv. 2003, 11:213-220.
31. Junge X., Jacot K.A., Bosshard A., Lindemann-Matthies P. Swiss people's attitudes towards field margins for biodiversity conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 2009, 17:150-159.
32. Kaltenborn B.P., Bjerke T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59:1-11.
33. Kampmann D., Herzog F., Jeanneret P., Konold W., Peter M., Walter T., Wildi O., Lüscher A. Mountain grassland biodiversity: impact of site conditions versus management type. J. Nat. Conserv. 2008, 16:12-25.
34. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature. A Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York.
35. Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Ryan R.L. With People in Mind 1998, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
36. Kleijn D., Sutherland W.J. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40:947-969.
37. Mountain Biodiversity. A Global Assessment 2002, Parthenon Publishing, Boca Raton. C. Körner, E.M. Spehn (Eds.).
38. Lange E. The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54:163-182.
39. Lindemann-Matthies P., Bose E. Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79:298-307.
40. Lindemann-Matthies P., Junge X., Matthies D. Experimental evidence for human preference of biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143:195-202.
41. Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 44:77-198.
42. MacDonald D., Crabtree J.R., Wiesinger G., Dax T., Stamou N., Fleury P., et al. Agriculture abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. J. Environ. Manage. 2000, 59:47-69.
43. Messerli P. Research on alpine landscape development: from research to policy. Mt. Res. Dev. 2008, 28:128-131.
44. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Current State and Trends 2005, Island Press, London.
45. Nassauer J.I. Framing the landscape in photographic simulation. J. Environ. Manage. 1983, 17:1-16.
46. Nohl W. Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception-preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54:223-237.
47. Osgood C.E., Suci G.S., Tannenbaum P.H. The Measurement of Meaning 1957, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
48. Palmer J.F., Hoffmann R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54:149-161.
49. Schmid H., Lehmann B. Switzerland: agri-environmental policy outside the European Union. Agri-environmental Policy in the European Union 2000, 185-202. Aldershot, Ashgate. H. Buller, G.A. Wilson, A. Höll (Eds.).
50. Schüpbach B., Zgraggen K., Szerencsits E. Incentives for low-input land-use types and their influence on the attractiveness of landscapes. J. Environ. Manage. 2008, 89:222-233.
51. Scott M.J., Canter D.V. Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17:263-281.
52. Soini K., Aakkula J. Framing the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes: the essence of local conceptions and constructions. Land Use Policy 2007, 24:311-321.
53. Soliva R., Hunziker M. How do biodiversity and conservation values relate to landscape preferences? A case study from the Swiss Alps. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18:2483-2507.
54. Spiegelberger T., Hegg O., Matthies D., Hedlund K., Schaffner U. Long-term effects of short-term perturbation in a sub-alpine grassland. Ecology 2006, 87:1939-1944.
55. Strumse E. Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14:293-303.
56. Strumse E. Demographic differences in the visual preference for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996, 16:17-31.
57. Tasser E., Tappeiner U. Impact of land use changes on mountain vegetation. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2002, 5:173-184.
58. Trent R.B., Neumann E., Kvashny A. Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1987, 14:225-235.
59. Van den Berg A.E., Vlek C.A.J., Coeterier J.F. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. J. Environ. Psychol. 1998, 18:141-157.
60. Van den Born R.J.G., Lenders R.H.J., de Groot W.T., Huijsman E. The new biophilia: an exploration of vision of nature in Western countries. Environ. Conserv. 2001, 28:65-75.