Assessing the quality of agricultural landscape change with multiple dimensions

Land

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 598-616

  Pouta, Eija ^a   Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna ^a   Hurme, Timo ^b   Soini, Katriina ^a   Uusitalo, Marja ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b PLANT PRODUCTION RESEARCH   (Finland)

Author keywords

Landscape attributes; Landscape evaluation; Landscape quality scales

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949196862     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2073445X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/land3030598     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Ruiz, J.; Domon, G. Relationships between rural inhabitants and their landscapes in areas of intensive agricultural use: A case study in Quebec (Canada). J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 590-602
2. Soini, K.; Vaarala, H.; Pouta, E. Residents' sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural-urban interface. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 124-134
3. Kaljonen, M. Co-construction of agency and environmental management. The case of agri-environmental policy implementation at Finnish farms. J. Rural Stud. 2006, 22, 205-216
4. Soini, K.; Aakkula, J. Framing the biodiversity of agricultural landscape: The essence of local conceptions and constructions. Land Use Policy 2007, 24, 311-321
5. Council of Europe. The European Landscape Convention; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2000
6. Council of Europe. Faro Convention on Value of Cultural Heritage on Society; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2005
7. Rosley, M.S.F.; Lamit, H.; Rahman, S.R.A. Perceiving the aesthetic value of the rural landscape through valid indicators. Proced.-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 85, 318-331
8. Fry, G.; Tveit, M.S.; Ode, Å.; Velarde, M.D. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 933-947
9. Van der Jagt, A.; Craig, T.; Anable, J.; Brewer, M.J.; Pearson, D.G. Unearthing the picturesque: The validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 124, 1-13
10. Tveit, M.S.; Ode, Å.; Fry, G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res. 2006, 31, 229-256
11. Sevenant, M.; Antrop, M. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2889-2899
12. Sevenant. M.; Antrop, M. The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 827-842
13. Tress, B.; Tress, G. Capitalizing on multiplicity: A transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 57, 143-157
14. Coeterier, J.F. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1996, 34, 27-44
15. Sullivan, W.C.; Anderson, O.M.; Lovell, S.T. Agricultural buffers at the rural-urban fringe: An examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the Midwestern United States. Landsc Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 299-313
16. Tempesta, T. The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 258-272
17. Bujis, 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
18. Rogge, E.; Nevens, F.; Gulinck, H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 82, 159-174
19. Tveit, M.S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; A comparison between groups. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2882-2888
20. Ode Sang, Å.; Tveit, M.S. Perceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 557-564
21. Shafer, J.E.L.; Brush, R.O. How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landsc. Plan. 1977, 4, 237-256
22. Daniel, T.C.; Vining, J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In Behaviour and the Natural Environment; Altman, I., Wohwill, J.F., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 39-83
23. Scott, M.J.; Canter, D.V. Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17, 263-281
24. Karjalainen, E.; Komulainen, M. Field afforestation preferences: A case study in northeastern Finland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 43, 79-90
25. 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
26. Shuttleworth, S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. J. Environ. Manag. 1980, 11, 61-76
27. Rose, G. Visual methodologies. In An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2007; pp. 301
28. Nassauer, J.I. Framing the landscape in photographic simulation. J Environ. Manag. 1983, 16, 4
29. Mollie-Stefulesco, C.; Quesney, D. Séquences paysages. In Revue de L'observatoire Photographique du Paysage; Hazan, éd.; Ministère de l'environnement: Paris, France, 1997; p. 112
30. Trent, R.B.; Neumann, E.; Kvashny, A. Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1987, 14, 225-235
31. Garcia Pérez, J.D. Ascertaining landscape perceptions and preferences with pair-wise photographs: Planning rural tourism in Extremadura, Spain. Landsc. Res. 2002, 27, 297-308
32. Hetherington, J.; Daniel, T.C.; Brown, T.C. Is motion more important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environmental research. J. Environ. Psychol. 1993, 13, 283-291
33. Wherrett, J.R. Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landsc. Res. 2000, 25, 79-96
34. Roth, M. Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment-An empirical study from Germany. Landsc Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 179-192
35. Heikkilä, T.; Hietala-Koivu, R. Maatalousmaiseman visuaalinen seuranta. In Maatalouden Ympäristötuen Merkitys Luonnon Monimuotoisuudelle ja Maisemalle: Mytvas-Seurantatutkimus 2000-2003; In Series Suomen ympäristö No. 709; Kuussaari, M., Tiainen, J, Helenius, J., Hietala-Koivu, R., Heliölä, J., Eds.; Edita: Helsinki, Finland, 2004; p. 212
36. Ode, Å.; Tveit, M.S.; Fry, G. Capturing landscapes visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landsc. Res.2008, 33, 89-117
37. Howley, P. Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 72, 161-169
38. Howley, P.; Hynes, S.; Donoghue, C.O. Countryside preferences: Exploring individuals' willingness to pay for the conservation of the traditional farm landscape. Landsc. Res. 2012, 37, 703-719
39. 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
40. Benjamin, K.; Bouchard, A.; Domon, G. Abandoned farmlands as components of rural landscapes: An analysis of perceptions and representations. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 228-244
41. Strumse, E.; Hauge, L. Landscape protection evaluations and visual preferences for western Norwegian agrarian landscapes. Norsk Geogr. Tidsskr. 1998, 52, 1-15
42. Arriaza, M.; Cañas-Ortega, J.F.; Cañas-Madueño, J.A.; Ruiz-Aviles, P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 115-125
43. Rechtman, O. Visual perception of agricultural cultivated landscapes: Key components as predictors for landscape preferences. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 273-294
44. Sayadi, S.; Gonzalez, M.; Calatrava-Requena, J. Public preferences for landscape features: The case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 334-344
45. Rambolinaza, M.; Dachary-Bernard, J. Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 318-326
46. Grammatikopoulou, I.; Pouta, E.; Salmiovirta, M.; Soini, K. Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland. J. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 181-191
47. Campbell, D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: Combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58, 467-483
48. Van Berkel, D.B.; Verburg, P.H. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 37 (Part A), 163-174
49. Howley, P.; Donoghue, C.O.; Hynes, S. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 66-74
50. Hynes, S.; Campbell, D. Estimating the welfare of agricultural landscape change in Ireland: A choice experiment approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2011, 54, 1019-1039
51. Arnberger, A.; Eder, R. Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: An image-based latent class approach. Landsc. Res. 2011, 36, 19-40
52. Snider, J.G.; Osgood, C.E. Semantic Differential Technique: A Sourcebook; Chicago: Aldine, TX, USA, 1969
53. Múgica, M.; de Lucio, J.V. The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences. A case study at Doñana National Park (Spain). J. Environ. Manag. 1996, 47, 229-239
54. Kaltenborn, B.P.; Bjerke, T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59, 1-11
55. Franco, D.; Franco, D.; Mannino, I.; Zanetto, G. The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: The role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 62, 119-138
56. Ives, C.D.; Kendal, D. Values and attitudes of the urban public towards peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 80-90
57. Ryan, R.L. Local perceptions and values for a Midwestern river corridor. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 546, 1-13
58. Crow, T.; Brown, T.; de Young, R. The Riverside and Berwyn experience: Contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscape, and their effects on people. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 282-299
59. Tahvanainen, L.; Tyrväinen, L.; Ihalainen, M.; Vuorela, N.; Kolehmainen, O. Forest management and public perceptions-Visual versus verbal information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 53, 53-70
60. Tahvanainen, L.; Tyrväinen, L. Model for predicting the scenic value of rural landscape: A preliminary study of landscape preferences in North Carelia. Scand. J. For. Res. 1998, 13, 379-385
61. Gómez-Limón, J.; de Lucío, J.V. Changes in use and landscape preferences on the agricultural-livestock landscapes of the central Iberian Peninsula (Madrid, Spain). Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 44, 165-175
62. Brush, R.; Chenoweth, R.E.; Barman, T. Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 47, 39-45
63. Taloustutkimus. Internet Panel. Available online: http://www.taloustutkimus.fi/in-english/ products_services/internet_panel/ (accessed on 28 November 2013)
64. Statistics Finland. Available online: http:// www.stat.fi, 2011 (accessed on 28 November 2013)
65. Littell, R.C.; Milliken, G.A.; Stroup, W.W.; Wolfinger, R.D.; Schabenberger, O. SAS® for Mixed Models, 2nd ed.; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2006
66. Burton, R.J.F. Seeing through the "good farmer's" eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of "productivist" behaviour. Sociol. Rural. 2004, 44, 195-216
67. Soini, K. Beyond the Ecological Hot Spots: Understanding Local Residents' Perceptions of Biodiversity of Agricultural Landscapes. Ph.D. Thesis, Turun Yliopisto, Turku, Finland, 2007