Measuring the attractiveness of Dutch landscapes: Identifying national hotspots of highly valued places using Google Maps

Applied Geography

Volumn 45, Issue , 2013, Pages 220-229

  De Vries, Sjerp ^a   Buijs, Arjen E ^a   Langers, Fransje ^a   Farjon, Hans ^b   Van Hinsberg, Arjen ^b   Sijtsma, Frans J ^c  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b PBL NETHERLANDS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Attractiveness; Google Maps; Landscape; Natural places; Social values; Spatial discounting

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; LAND USE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE; MAPPING; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; WORLD WIDE WEB;

NETHERLANDS;

EID: 84885945243     PISSN: 01436228     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.017     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Alessa L., Kliskey A., Brown G. Social-ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 85(1):27-39.
2. Antrop M. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning 2005, 70(1-2):21-34.
3. Bearman N., Appleton K. Using Google Maps to collect spatial responses in a survey environment. Area 2012, 44(2):160-169.
4. Boardman A.E., Greenberg D., Vining A., Weimer D. Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice 2011, Pearson Education, Boston (Mass.).
5. Brown G. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications. Society and Natural Resources 2005, 18(1):17-39.
6. Brown G., Brabyn L. The extrapolation of social landscape values to a national level in New Zealand using landscape character classification. Applied Geography 2012, 35(1-2):84-94.
7. Brown G., Raymond C. The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography 2007, 27(2):89-111.
8. Brown G., Reed P. Validation of forest values typology for use in national forest planning. Forest Science 2000, 46(2):1-8.
9. Brown G., Reed P. Social landscape metrics: measures for understanding place values from public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS). Landscape Research 2012, 37(1):73-90.
10. Bryan B.A., Raymond C.M., Crossman N.D., Hatton MacDonald D. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, and how?. Landscape and Urban Planning 2010, 97(2):111-122.
11. Buijs A., Lawrence A. Emotional conflicts in rational forestry: towards a research agenda for understanding emotions in environmental conflicts. Forest Policy and Economics 2012, 33:104-111.
12. CBS Vakanties van Nederlanders 2010 2011, Statistics Netherlands (CBS), The Hague/Heerlen.
13. Coeterier J.F. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 1996, 34(1):27-44.
14. De Vries S., Roos-Klein Lankhorst J., Buijs A.E. Mapping the attractiveness of the Dutch countryside: a GIS-based landscape appreciation model. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 2007, 81(1-2):43-58.
15. Dramstad W.E., Fjellstad W.J., Strand G.H., Mathiesen H.F., Engan G., Stokland J.N. Development and implementation of the Norwegian monitoring programme for agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 2002, 64(1):49-63.
16. Fischer A., Van der Wal R. Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird - the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biological Conservation 2007, 135(2):256-267.
17. Green R.E., Balmford A., Crane P.R., Mace G.M., Reynolds J.D., Turner R.K. Aframework for improved monitoring of biodiversity: responses to the world summit on sustainable development. Conservation Biology 2005, 19(1):56-65.
18. Jacobs M.H., Buijs A.E. Understanding stakeholders' attitudes toward water management interventions: role of place meanings. Water Resources Research 2011, 47(1):W01503.
19. Junker B., Buchecker M. Aesthetic preferences versus ecological objectives in river restorations. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 85(3-4):141-154.
20. Langers F., Buijs A.E., De Vries S., Farjon J.M.J., Van Hinsberg A., Van Kampen P., et al. Potenties van de Hotspotmonitor om de graadmeter Landschap te versterken 2013, Werkdocument 321, Statutory Research Tasks Unit for Nature and the Environment (WOt Natuur & Milieu), Wageningen.
21. Roos-Klein Lankhorst J., De Vries S., Buijs A. Mapping landscape attractiveness: a GIS-based landscape appreciation model for the Dutch countryside. Research in Urbanism Series 2011, Vol. 2:147-161. IOS Press BV, Amsterdam. S. Nijhuis, R. van Lammeren, F. van der Hoeven (Eds.).
22. Miller C.C. Abeast in the field: the Google Maps mashup as GIS/2. Cartographica 2006, 41(3):187-199.
23. Sijtsma F.J., Brouwer A.E. Book review. European spatial research and planning 2011, Vols. I & II. 1(1): 105-106. J. Herriges, C.L. Kling (Eds.).
24. Sijtsma F.J., Daams M.N., Farjon H., Buijs A.E. Deep feelings around a shallow coast. A spatial analysis of tourism jobs and the attractivity of nature in the Dutch Wadden area. Ocean and Coastal Management 2012, 68:138-148.
25. Sijtsma F.J., Farjon H., van Tol S., van Hinsberg A., Kampen P.v., Buijs A. Evaluation of landscape changes - enriching the economist's toolbox with the hotspotindex. The economic value of landscapes 2013, 136-164. Routledge, London. W. Heijman, C.M.J.V.D. Heide (Eds.).
26. Strumse E. Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1994, 14(4):293-303.
27. Vizzari M. Spatial modelling of potential landscape quality. Applied Geography 2011, 31(1):108-118.