Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 133, Issue , 2015, Pages 67-77

  Junge, Xenia ^a   Schüpbach, Beatrice ^b   Walter, Thomas ^b   Schmid, Bernhard ^c   Lindemann Matthies, Petra ^d  

^a SWISS FEDERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE WSL   (Switzerland)

^b AGROSCOPE RECKENHOLZ TÄNIKON RESEARCH STATION ART   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF KARLSRUHE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aesthetic value; Biodiversity; Ecological compensation areas; Landscape seasonality; Photo survey

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CROPS; ECOLOGY; SURVEYS;

AESTHETIC PREFERENCE; AESTHETIC QUALITIES; AESTHETIC VALUE; AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES; ECOLOGICAL COMPENSATION; ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS; MULTIFUNCTIONAL AGRICULTURES; SEASONALITY;

AGRICULTURAL ROBOTS;

AGRICULTURAL LAND; ESTHETICS; LAND MANAGEMENT; LAND USE PLANNING; LOWLAND ENVIRONMENT; SEASONAL VARIATION;

SWITZERLAND;

EID: 84907705708     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Akbar K.F., Hale W.H.G., Headley A.D. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003, 63:139-144. 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00185-8.
2. Angileri V., Toccolini A. The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 1993, 24:105-112. 10.1016/0169-2046(93)90089-V.
3. Appleton J. The experience of landscape 1975, John Wiley and Sons, London.
4. Aviron S., Nitsch H., Jeanneret P., Buholzer S., Luka H., Pfiffner L., et al. Ecological cross compliance promotes farmland biodiversity in Switzerland. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2009, 7:247-252. 10.1890/070197.
5. Brady M., Kellermann K., Sahrbacher C., Jelinek L. Impacts of decoupled agricultural support on farm structure, biodiversity and landscape mosaic: Some EU results. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2009, 60:563-585. 10.1111/j. 1477-9552.2009.00216.x/full.
6. Brassley P. On the unrecognized significance of the ephemeral landscape. Landscape Research 1998, 23:119-132. 10.1080/01426399808706531.
7. Buijs A.E., Pedroli B., Luginbuhl Y. From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: Changing social perceptions of the European landscape. Landscape Ecology 2006, 21:375-389. 10.1007/s10980-005-5223-2.
8. Burton R.J.F. Seeing through the 'good farmer's' eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of 'productivist' behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 2004, 44:195-215. 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00270.x.
9. Burton R.J.F. Understanding farmers' aesthetic preference for tidy agricultural landscapes: A Bourdieusian perspective. Landscape Research 2011, 37:51-71. 10.1080/01426397.2011.559311.
10. Butler C.D., Oluoch-Kosura W. Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being. Ecology and Society 2006, 11:30. 〈http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art30/〉 [online].
11. Coeterier J.F. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 1996, 34:27-44. 10.1016/0169-2046(95)00204-9.
12. Crawley M.J. Statistics. An Introduction using R 2005, Wiley, Chichester.
13. Daniel T.C., Boster R.S. Measuring landscape aesthetics: The scenic beauty method. USDA Forest Service research paper RM-167 1976.
14. Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 54:267-281. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4.
15. Dillman D.A. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method 1978, Wiley-Interscience, New York.
16. 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. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 78:465-474. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006.
17. Agricultural report 2011 2012, FOAG (Federal Office for Agriculture), FOAG (Federal Office for Agriculture), Berne, Switzerland, (in German with English summary), (retrieved June 21, 2013). http://www.blw.admin.ch/dokumentation/00018/00498/index.html%3Flang=en.
18. Frane J.W., Hill M. Factor analysis as a tool for data analysis. Communications in Statistics, A: Theory and Methods 1976, 5:487-506. 10.1080/03610927608827370.
19. Gobster P.H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.C., Fry G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22:959-972. 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x.
20. Greider T., Garkovich L. Landscapes - the social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology 1994, 59:1-24. 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1994.tb00519.x.
21. Hagerhall C.M. Consensus in landscape preference judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2001, 21:83-92. 10.1006/jevp.2000.0186.
22. Hasund K.P., Kataria M., Lagerkvist C.J. Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: A choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2011, 54:31-53. 10.1080/09640568.2010.502753.
23. Heerwagen J.H., Orians G.H. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. The biophilia hypothesis 1993, 138-172. Island Press, Washington, DC. S.R. Kellert, E.O. Wilson (Eds.).
24. Herzon I., Mikk M. Farmers' perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: A comparative study from Estonia and Finland. Journal for Nature Conservation 2007, 15:10-25. 10.1016/j.jnc.2006.08.001.
25. Hull R.B., McCarthy M.M. Change in the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 1988, 15:265-278. 10.1016/0169-2046(88)90050-3.
26. Hull R.B., Stewart W.P. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1992, 12:101-114. 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80063-5.
27. Hunziker M. The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural landscapes: Perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban Planning 1995, 31:399-410. 10.1016/0169-2046(95)93251-J.
28. Hunziker M., Kienast F. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty-A prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecology 1999, 14:161-176. 10.1023/A:1008079715913.
29. Hunziker M., Felber P., Gehring K., Buchecker M., Bauer N., Kienast F. Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Mountain Research and Development 2008, 28:140-147. 10.1659/mrd.0952.
30. Jeanneret P., Schüpbach B., Pfiffner L., Herzog F., Walter T. The Swiss agri-environmental programme and its effects on selected biodiversity indicators. Journal for Nature Conservation 2003, 11:213-220. 10.1078/1617-1381-00049.
31. Jongeneel R.A., Polman N.B.P., Slangen L.H.G. Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional?. Land Use Policy 2008, 25:81-94. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.001.
32. Junge X., Jacot K.A., Bosshard A., Lindemann-Matthies P. Swiss people's attitudes towards field margins for biodiversity conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation 2009, 17:150-159. 10.1016/j.jnc.2008.12.004.
33. Junge X., Lindemann-Matthies P., Hunziker M., Schüpbach B. Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biological Conservation 2011, 144:1430-1440. 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.012.
34. Kaltenborn B.P., Bjerke T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 59:1-11. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2.
35. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The experience of nature. A psychological perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York.
36. Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Ryan R.L. With people in mind 1998, Island Press, Washington, DC.
37. Kellert S.R. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. Journal of Social Issues 1993, 49:53-69. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00908.x.
38. Kleijn D., Sutherland W.J. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?. Journal of Applied Ecology 2003, 40:947-969. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00868.x.
39. Kuper R. Here and gone: The visual effects of seasonal changes in plant and vegetative characteristics on landscape preference criteria. Landscape Journal 2013, 32:65-78. 10.3368/lj.32.1.65.
40. Lindemann-Matthies P., Bose E. Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 79:298-307. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.007.
41. Lindemann-Matthies P., Briegel R., Schüpbach B., Junge X. Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 2010, 98:99-109. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.015.
42. Lindemann-Matthies P., Junge X., Matthies D. The influence of plant diversity on people's perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation 2010, 143:195-202. 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.003.
43. Lyons E. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior 1983, 15:487-511. 10.1177/0013916583154005.
44. Nassauer J.I. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 1995, 14:161-170. 10.3368/lj.14.2.161.
45. Nassauer J.I. Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. Placing nature: Culture and landscape ecology 1997, 67-83. Island Press, Washington, DC. J.I. Nassauer (Ed.).
46. Ode A., Fry G., Tveit M.S., Messager P., Miller D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:375-383. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013.
47. Orians G.H. Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behaviour. The evolution of human social behaviour 1980, 49-66. Elsevier, New York. J.S. Lockard (Ed.).
48. Orians G.H. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. Landscape meanings and values 1986, 3-25. Allen & Unwin, London. E.C. Penning-Rowsell, D. Lowenthal (Eds.).
49. Palang H., Fry G., Jauhiainen J.S., Jones M., Sooväli H. Editorial: Landscape and seasonality-Seasonal landscapes. Landscape Research 2005, 30:165-172. 10.1080/01426390500044259.
50. Palmer J.F. Reliability of rating visible landscape qualities. Landscape Journal 2000, 19:166-178. 10.3368/lj.19.1-2.166.
51. Palmer J.F., Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 54:149-161. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00133-5.
52. Patsfall M.R., Feimer N.R., Buhyoff G.J., Wellman J.D. The prediction of scenic beauty from landscape content and composition. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1984, 4:7-26. 10.1016/S0272-4944(84)80016-X.
53. Purcell A.T., Lamb R.J. Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 1998, 42:57-66. 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00073-5.
54. Schüpbach B., Zgraggen K., Szerencsits E. Incentives for low-input land-use types and their influence on the attractiveness of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 2008, 89:222-233. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.060.
55. Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management 1980, 11:61-76.
56. Smets G. Aesthetic judgment and arousal: An experimental contribution to psycho-aesthetics 1973, Leuven University Press, Leuven.
57. Soini K., Aakkula J. Framing the biodiversity of agricultural landscape: The essence of local conceptions and constructions. Land Use Policy 2007, 24:311-321. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.03.001.
58. Soliva R., Bolliger J., Hunziker M. Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landscape Research 2010, 35(6):671-696. 10.1080/01426397.2010.519436.
59. Stilma E.S.C., Smit A.B., Geerling-Eiff F.A., Struik P.C., Vosman B., Korevaar H. Perception of biodiversity in arable production systems in the Netherlands. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 2009, 56:391-404. 10.1016/S1573-5214(09)80006-7.
60. Stobbelaar D.J., Hendriks K., Stortelder A. Phenology of the landscape: The role of organic agriculture. Landscape Research 2004, 29:153-179. 10.1080/01426390410001690374.
61. Stobbelaar D.J., Hendriks K. Seasonality of agricultural landscapes: Reading time and place by colours and shapes. Seasonal landscapes 2007, 103-126. Springer, Berlin. H. Palang, H. Sooväli, A. Printsmann (Eds.).
62. Strumse E. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1996, 16:17-31. 10.1006/jevp.1996.0002.
63. Tress B., Tress G., Décamps H., d'Hauteserre A.M. Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 57:137-141. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00199-2.
64. Tveit M., Ode A., Fry G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 2006, 31:229-255. 10.1080/01426390600783269.
65. Ulrich R.S. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 1986, 13:29-44. 10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8.
66. Ulrich S.R. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. The biophilia hypothesis 1993, 73-137. Island Press, Washington DC. S.R. Kellert, E.O. Wilson (Eds.).
67. 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. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1998, 18:141-157. 10.1006/jevp.1998.0080.
68. Van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L. New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 78:362-372. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006.
69. Wandersee J.H., Schussler E.E. Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher 1999, 61:82-86.