Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 82, Issue 2, pp 209–224 | Cite as

The fuzziness of Montado landscapes: progress in assessing user preferences through photo-based surveys

  • T. Pinto-Correia
  • F. Barroso
  • D. Surová
  • H. Menezes
Article

Abstract

The European Landscape Convention (2000) states that landscape is an important contributor to the quality of life for people everywhere and that landscape is a complex of natural and cultural factors, as they are seen by the observer. Landscape preference, i.e. the degree to which people like a landscape and variations in the same type of landscape pattern, is an emerging field of knowledge, still under development. Moreover, knowing how preferences of rural landscapes differ among stakeholders can help define and support management responses to the changing demands of modern society. There is a need to understand this demand for new uses and activities, such as hunting, leisure, recreation, life quality support, and aesthetic appreciation. In Mediterranean extensive land use systems, such as the Montado, where agricultural production is under threat, but where the demand for amenity functions is increasing, assessing preferences and thus what the public is looking for, is particularly relevant. This papers demonstrates how photo based surveys can be an suitable tool for assessing landscape preferences in Montado landscapes, and also that, in order to cope with the underlying fuzziness of these landscapes, the images need to be edited (manipulated) so that the variations shown to respondents are adequately controlled in the study. The methodological approach as well as the results, of two different studies on the users preferences for Montado landscapes, applied to case-study areas in the region of Alentejo, Portugal, are presented. The issues concerned with photo manipulation are a particular focus of discussion.

Keywords

Landscape preferences Visualization tools Photo manipulation Mediterranean landscapes Photo-based enquiries Landscape fuzziness 

References

  1. Al-Kodmany K (1999) Using visualisation techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: process, implementation and evaluation. Landsc Urban Plan 45:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronson J, Pereira JS, Pausas J (eds) (2009) Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology, adaptive management, and restoration. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Arriaza M, Cañas-Ortega JF, Cañas-Madueño JA, Ruiz-Aviles P (2004) Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 69:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastian O, Steinhardt U (2002) Development and perspectives in landscape ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, p 498Google Scholar
  5. Bell S (2001) Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landsc Urban Plan 54:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brush R, Chenoweth RE, Barman T (2000) Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 47:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunce RGH, Groom GB, Jongman RHG, Padoa Schioppa E (eds) (2005) Handbook for surveillance and monitoring of European habitats. Alterra Report 1219, EU FP project EVK CT-2002-20018, 107 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Coeterier JF (1996) Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 34:27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniel TC, Boster RS (1976) Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method USDA forest service research paper RM, vol 167. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
  10. De Lucio JV, Múgica M (1994) Landscape preferences and behaviour of visitors to Spanish national parks. Landsc Urban Plan 29:145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Val GDLF, Atauri JA, de Lucio JV (2006) Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 77:393–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dramstad WE, Tveit MS, Fjellstad WJ, Fry GLA (2006) Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc Urban Plan 78:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunn MC (1976) Landscape with photographs: testing the preference approach to landscape evaluation. J Environ Manage 4:15–26Google Scholar
  14. Fonseca A (2004) O Montado no Alentejo (Séc. XV a XVIII). Edições Colibri, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  15. Forman R, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York 619 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrod G, Willis K (1992) Valuing goods characteristics: an application of the hedonic price method to environmental attributes. J Environ Manage 34:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gómez-Limón J, de Lucio F (1999) Changes in use and landscape preferences on the agricultural livestock landscapes of the Central Iberia Peninsula (Madrid, Spain). Landsc Urban Plan 44:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gulinck H, Mugica M, de Lucio JV, Atauri JA (2001) A framework for comparative landscape analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Madrid region (Spain). Landsc Urban Plan 55:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hagerhall CM (2001) Consensus in landscape preference judgements. J Environ Psychol 21:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill D, Daniel TC (2008) Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: can information alter landscape preferences? Soc Nat Resour 21:34–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunziker M, Felber P, Gehring K, Buchecker M, Bauer N, Kienast F (2008) Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups—results of two empirical studies in Switzerland. Mt Res Dev 28:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joffre R, Rambal S, Ratte JP (1999) The dehesa system of southern Spain and Portugal as a natural ecosystem mimic. Agroforestry Systems, pp 57–79Google Scholar
  23. Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T (2002) Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc Urban Plan 59:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Karjalainen E, Tyrvainen L (2002) Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landsc Urban Plan 59:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kearney AR, Bradley GA, Petrich CH, Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Simpson-Colebank D (2008) Public perception as support for scenic quality regulation in a nationally treasured landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 87:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Law CS, Zube EH (1983) Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception. Landsc Res 8:22–23Google Scholar
  28. Longley PA, Goodchild MF, Maguire DJ, Richardson DM (2005) Geographic information systems and science. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Menezes H (2007) Integração dos agentes locais na definição e caracterização de Unidades de Paisagem. Caso de Estudo de Castelo de Vide. Trabalho de Final de curso. em Arquitectura PaisagisticaGoogle Scholar
  31. Menezes H, Barroso FL, Pinto-Correia T (2009) Understanding the multifunctionality transition through landscape preferences. The case of a Mediterranean peripheric area in Southern Portugal. Landsc Res (Submitted)Google Scholar
  32. Natori Y, Chenoweth R (2008) Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists. J Environ Psychol 28:250–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ode A, Fry G, Tveit MS, Messager P, Miller D (2009) Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J Environ Manage 90:375–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ojeda F, Arroyo J, Marañón T (1995) Biodiversity components and conservation of Mediterranean heathlands in southern Spain. Biol Conserv 72:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  36. Pérez JG (2002) Ascertaining landscape perceptions and preferences with pair-wise photographs: planning rural tourism in Extremadura. Spain Landsc Res 27:297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petrich C (1984) EIA scoping for aesthetics: hindsight from the Greene County Nuclear Power Plant EIS. In: Hart SL et al (eds) Improving impact assessment: increasing the relevance and utilization of scientific and technical information. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp 57–92Google Scholar
  38. Pinto-Correia T (1993) Landscape monitoring and management in European rural areas: Danish and Portuguese case studies of landscape patterns and dynamics. Phd thesis—Vol. I. Department of Geography, University of CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  39. Pinto-Correia T, Fonseca A (2009) Historical perspective of Montados: the Évora case study. In: Aronson J, Santos Pereira J, Pausas JG (eds) Cork oak woodlands in transition: ecology, management, and restoration of an ancient mediterranean ecosystem. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 49–58Google Scholar
  40. Pinto-Correia T, Primdahl J (2009) When rural landscapes change functionality: constraints and development options for multifunctional landscapes. Examples from contrasting case-studies in Portugal and Denmark. In: Brouwer F, van der Heide M (eds) Multifunctional rural land management: economics and policies. Earthscan, pp 213–234Google Scholar
  41. Pinto-Correia T, Vos W (2004) Multifunctionality in Mediterranean landscapes—past and future. New Dimens Eur Landsc 4:135–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pinto-Correia T, Barroso FL, Menezes H (2010) The changing role of farming in a peripheric South European area: the challenge of the landscape amenities demand. In: Wiggering H, Knierim A, Pintar M, Ende A (eds) Innoland—innovations in European rural landscapes. Kluwer (accepted), Springer, pp 53–76Google Scholar
  43. Plieninger T, Modolell J, Konold W (2004) Land manager attitudes toward management, regeneration, and conservation of Spanish holm oak savannas (dehesas). Landsc Urban Plan 66:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ramos I, Teixeira T (2006) Towards a landscape monitoring system at a local scale: case study Castelo de Vide municipality. Agronomia Lusitana 51(4):347–370Google Scholar
  45. Ribeiro NA, Surovy P, Oliveira AC (2006) Modelling cork oak production in Portugal. In: Hasenauer H (ed) Sustainable forest management growth models for Europe. Springer, Berlin, pp 285–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rogge E, Nevens F, Gulinck H (2007) Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plan 82:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scott MJ, Canter DV (1997) Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. J Environ Psychol 17:263–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shafer EL Jr, Brush RO (1977) How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landsc Plan 4:237–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shuttleworth S (1980) The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. J Environ Manage 11:61–76Google Scholar
  50. Surová D, Pinto-Correia T (2008) Landscape preferences in the cork oak Montado region of Alentejo, southern Portugal: Searching for valuable landscape characteristics for different user groups. Landsc Res 33:311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Surová D, Pinto-Correia T (2009) Use and assessment of the ‘new’ rural functions by land users and landowners of the Montado in southern Portugal. Outlook on AGRICULTURE Vol 38-No 2Google Scholar
  52. Surová D, Pinto-Correia T, Surovy P, Ribeiro N (2010) Landscape preferences as a new component in Decision Support Systems: contributions for the management of the cork oak Montado as a multifunctional system (this issue)Google Scholar
  53. Swihart M, Petrich C (1988) Assessing the aesthetic impacts of small hydropower development. Environ Prof 10(3):198–210Google Scholar
  54. Tveit MS (2009) Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. J Environ Manage 90(9):2882–2888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van den Berg AE, Vlek CAJ, Coeterier JF (1998) Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. J Environ Psychol 18:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Doorn AM, Pinto-Correia T (2007) Differences in land cover interpretation in landscapes rich in cover gradients: reflections based on the montado of South Portugal. Agrofor Syst 70:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wherrett JR (2000) Creating landscape preference models using the Internet as a medium for surveys. Landsc Res 25:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiggering H, Muller K, Werner A, Helming K (2003) The concept of multifunctionality in sustainable land development. In: Helming K, Wiggering H (eds) Sustainable development of multifunctional landscapes. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  59. Yamashita S (2002) Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: use of Photo-Projective Method to compare child and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japanese river environment. Landsc Urban Plan 62:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zonneveld IS (1995) Land ecology. SPB Academic Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Pinto-Correia
    • 1
  • F. Barroso
    • 1
  • D. Surová
    • 1
  • H. Menezes
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group on Mediterranean Ecosystems and Landscapes (MEL), Institute of the Mediterranean Agrarian and Environmental Sciences (ICAAM)University of Évora, Pólo da MitraÉvoraPortugal

Personalised recommendations