A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 17, Issue , 2016, Pages 87-98

  van Zanten, Boris T ^a   Zasada, Ingo ^b   Koetse, Mark J ^a   Ungaro, Fabrizio ^b,c   Häfner, Kati ^b,d   Verburg, Peter H ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b LEIBNIZ CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESEARCH ZALF   (Germany)

^c CNR   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Agricultural landscape; Comparative study; Cultural ecosystem services; Landscape aesthetics; Landscape preferences; Landscape values

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949293805     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.011     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Adevi A.a, Grahn P. Preferences for landscapes: a matter of cultural determinants or innate reflexes that point to our evolutionary background?. Landsc. Res. 2012, 37:27-49. 10.1080/01426397.2011.576884.
2. Arnberger A., Eder R. Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: an image-based latent class approach. Landsc. Res. 2011, 36:19-40. 10.1080/01426397.2010.536204.
3. 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. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029.
4. BBSR, 2011. Raumtypen: Besiedelung und Lage [WWW Document]. URL 〈〉, (accessed 12.12.13). http://www.bbsr.bund.de/nn_1086478/BBSR/DE/Raumbeobachtung/Downloads/downloadsReferenz2.html.
5. Beckmann V., Eggers J., Mettepenningen E. Deciding how to decide on agri-environmental schemes: the political economy of subsidiarity, decentralisation and participation in the European Union. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52:689-716. 10.1080/09640560902958289.
6. Buijs A.E., Elands B.H.M.M., Langers F. No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 91:113-123. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003.
7. Campbell D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58:467-483. 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00117.x.
8. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.J. Preferences with and without prices - does the price attribute affect behavior in stated preference surveys?. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 38:155-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9068-1.
9. CBS, 2013. Stedelijkheidsklasse per gemeente [WWW Document]. URL 〈〉, (accessed 12.12.13). http://statline.cbs.nl/statweb/.
10. Council of Europe The European Landscape Convention 2000, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
11. Dachary-Bernard J., Rambonilaza T. Choice experiment, multiple programmes contingent valuation and landscape preferences: how can we support the land use decision making process?. Land Cse Policy 2012, 29:846-854. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.002.
12. Daniel T.C., Muhar A., Arnberger A., Aznar O., Boyd J.W., Chan K.M.A., Costanza R., Elmqvist T., Flint C.G., Gobster P.H., Grêt-Regamey A., Lave R., Muhar S., Penker M., Ribe R.G., Schauppenlehner T., Sikor T., Soloviy I., Spierenburg M., Taczanowska K., Tam J., von der Dunk A. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109:8812-8819. 10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
13. de Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7:260-272. 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
14. Dramstad W.E., Tveit M.S., Fjellstad W.J., Fry G.La Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78:465-474. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006.
15. Eisler A.D., Eisler H., Yoshida M. Perception of human ecology: cross-cultural and gender comparisons. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23:89-101. 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00083-X.
16. 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.
17. Franks J.R., Emery S.B. Incentivising collaborative conservation: Lessons from existing environmental Stewardship Scheme options. Land Use Policy 2013, 30:847-862. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.005.
18. Gobster P.H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.C., Fry G. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22:959-972. 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x.
19. Hensher D.A., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20. Howley P. Landscape aesthetics: assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 72:161-169. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026.
21. Howley P., Hynes S., Donoghue C.O. Countryside preferences: exploring individuals' willingness to pay for the conservation of the traditional farm landscape countryside preferences: exploring individuals' willingness to pay for the conservation of the traditional farm landscape. Landsc. Res. 2012, 37:703-719.
22. Hunziker M., Buchecker M., Hartig T. Space and place - two aspects of the human-landscape relationship. Landscape 2007, 8:47-62.
23. Hunziker M., Kienast F. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty - a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landsc. Ecol. 1999, 14:161-176.
24. Hynes S., Campbell D., Howley P. A holistic vs. an attribute-based approach to agri-environmental policy valuation: do welfare estimates differ?. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 62:305-329. 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00287.x.
25. 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. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144:1430-1440. 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.012.
26. Kaltenborn B.P., Bjerke T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59:1-11. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2.
27. Kaplan R., Herbert E.J. Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1987, 14:281-293. 10.1016/0169-2046(87)90040-5.
28. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
29. Klijn J.A. Driving forces behind landscape transformation in Europe, from a conceptual approach to policy options. New Dimens. Eur. Landsc. 2004, 4:201-218.
30. Korevaar H., Meulenkamp W.J.H., Agricola H.J., Geerts R.H.E.M., Schaap B.F. Kwaliteit van het landelijk gebied in drie Nationale Landschappen 2008, Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu, Wageningen.
31. Lefebvre M., Espinosa M., Gomez y Paloma S., Paracchini M.L., Piorr A., Zasada I. Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 0568:1-25. 10.1080/09640568.2014.891975.
32. Lefebvre, M., Espinosa, M., Paloma, S. y, 2012. The Influence of the Common Agricultural Policy on Agricultural Landscapes. Luxembourg. Doi: . http://10.2791/94269.
33. Liekens I., Schaafsma M., De Nocker L., Broekx S., Staes J., Aertsens J., Brouwer R. Developing a value function for nature development and land use policy in Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy 2013, 30:549-559. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.008.
34. Lindemann-Matthies P., Keller D., Li X., Schmid B. Attitudes toward forest diversity and forest ecosystem services--a cross-cultural comparison between China and Switzerland. J. Plant Ecol. 2013, 7:1-9. 10.1093/jpe/rtt015.
35. 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, 44:177-198. 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5.
36. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
37. Lovett, A., Dockerty, T., Suennenberg, G., Appleton, K., 2010. The Use of Landscape Visualisations in the RUFUS Case Studies. Norwich.
38. Luckmann K., Lagemann V., Menzel S. Landscape assessment and evaluation of young people: comparing nature-orientated habitat and engineered habitat preferences. Environ. Behav. 2011, 45:86-112. 10.1177/0013916511411478.
39. Maes J., Paracchini M.L., Zulian G., Dunbar M.B., Alkemade R. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 155:1-12. 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.016.
40. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academic Press, New York. P. Zarembaka (Ed.).
41. Meeus J.Ha The transformation of agricultural landscapes in Western Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 1993, 129:171-190. 10.1016/0048-9697(93)90169-7.
42. Moran D., McVittie A., Allcroft D.J., Elston Da Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: a comparison of methods. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63:42-53. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.018.
43. Mücher C.a, Klijn J.a, Wascher D.M., Schaminée J.H.J. A new European Landscape Classification (LANMAP): a transparent, flexible and user-oriented methodology to distinguish landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10:87-103. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.03.018.
44. Paracchini M.L., Capitani C. Implementation of a EU wide indicator for the rural-agrarian landscape 2011, Publications Office, Luxembourg. 10.2788/25137.
45. Pinto-Correia T., Carvalho-Ribeiro S. The Index of Function Suitability (IFS): a new tool for assessing the capacity of landscapes to provide amenity functions. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:23-34. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.001.
46. Pinto-Correia T., Gustavsson R., Pirnat J. Bridging the gap between centrally defined policies and local decisions - towards more sensitive and creative rural landscape management. Landsc. Ecol. 2006, 21:333-346. 10.1007/s10980-005-4720-7.
47. Plieninger T., Dijks S., Oteros-rozas E., Bieling C. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 2013, 33:118-129. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013.
48. Plieninger T., Schleyer C., Schaich H., Ohnesorge B., Gerdes H., Hernández-Morcillo M., Bieling C. Mainstreaming ecosystem services through reformed European agricultural policies. Conserv. Lett. 2012, 5:281-288. 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00240.x.
49. Pouta E., Grammatikopoulou I., Hurme T., Soini K., Uusitalo M. Assessing the quality of agricultural landscape change with multiple dimensions. Land 2014, 3:598-616. 10.3390/land3030598.
50. Power A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2010, 365:2959-2971. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0143.
51. Prager K., Reed M., Scott A. Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale-rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:244-249. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.06.012.
52. Primdahl, J., 2010. Globalisation and the local agricultural landscape: current change patterns and public policy interventions, In: Globalisation and Agricultural Landscapes - Change Patterns and Policy Trends in Developed Countries. pp. 149-167.
53. Rambonilaza 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. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.013.
54. Schaich H., Bieling C., Plieninger T. Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA 2010, 4:269-277.
55. Scholz, E., 1962. Die naturräumliche Gliederung Brandenburgs. Potsdam.
56. Seppelt R., Fath B., Burkhard B., Fisher J.L., Grêt-Regamey A., Lautenbach S., Pert P., Hotes S., Spangenberg J., Verburg P.H., Van Oudenhoven A.P.E. Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21:145-154. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.003.
57. 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. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002.
58. Soliva R., Bolliger J., Hunziker M. Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landsc. Res. 2010, 35:671-696. 10.1080/01426397.2010.519436.
59. Stoate C., Báldi a, Beja P., Boatman N.D., Herzon I., van Doorn a, de Snoo G.R., Rakosy L., Ramwell C. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe--a review. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91:22-46. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005.
60. Swanwick C. Society's attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:S62-S75. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.025.
61. Swanwick, C., Hanley, N., 2007. Scoping Study on Agricultural Landscape Valuation, October.
62. Tahvanainen L., Ihalainen M., Hietala-Koivu R., Kolehmainen O., Tyrväinen L., Nousiainen I., Helenius J. Measures of the EU Agri-Environmental Protection Scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 66:213-227. 10.1006/jema.2002.0489.
63. Train K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation 2009, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
64. van Berkel D.B., Verburg P.H. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 37:163-174. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025.
65. van den Berg A., Vlek C., Coeterier J. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. J. Environ. 1998, 141-157.
66. van Zanten B.T., Verburg P.H., Espinosa M., Gomez-y-Paloma S., Galimberti G., Kantelhardt J., Kapfer M., Lefebvre M., Manrique R., Piorr A., Raggi M., Schaller L., Targetti S., Zasada I., Viaggi D. European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34:309-325. 10.1007/s13593-013-0183-4.
67. van Zanten B.T., Verburg P.H., Koetse M.J., van Beukering P.J.H. Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: a meta-analysis of case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 132:89-101. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.012.
68. Vecchiato D., Tempesta T. Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 26:111-120. 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.001.
69. Walker A.J., Ryan R.L. Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: a maine case study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 86:141-152. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.02.001.
70. Wascher, D.M., Pérez-Soba, M., 2004. Learning from Transfrontier Landscapes - Project in Support of the European Landscape Convention.
71. Westerberg V.H., Lifran R., Olsen S.B. To restore or not? A valuation of social and ecological functions of the Marais des Baux wetland in Southern France. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:2383-2393. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.005.
72. Yang A.L., Rounsevell M.D.a, Haggett C. Multilevel governance, decentralization and environmental prioritization: how is it working in rural development policy in Scotland?. Environ. Policy Gov. 2015, n/a-n/a. 10.1002/eet.1690.
73. Yang B., Kaplan R. The perception of landscape style: a cross-cultural comparison. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1990, 19:251-262.
74. Yu K. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 32:107-126. 10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9.
75. Zhang W., Ricketts T.H., Kremen C., Carney K., Swinton S.M. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64:253-260. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024.
76. Zube E., Pitt D. Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landsc. Plan. 1981, 8:69-87.