Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 82, Issue 2, pp 225–237 | Cite as

Integrating differentiated landscape preferences in a decision support model for the multifunctional management of the Montado

  • Diana SurováEmail author
  • Peter Surový
  • Nuno de Almeida Ribeiro
  • Teresa Pinto-Correia


A great part of the Alentejo region in Southern Portugal is covered by an agro-silvo pastoral system, the Montado. This traditional land-use system is specific, inter alia, in its ability to join production with favorable conditions for non-production functions. At the present time, as society positively evaluates and even demands cultural and amenity functions from the countryside, the Montado management faces the challenge of integrating production with non-production functions in a way which will result in suitable multifunctionality, and a more sound viability of the whole system. The decision support tool (DST) for the cork oak Montado management, the CORKFITS, based on the single-tree growth model and working at the stand level, is oriented primarily to the management of the production functions, but it is able to integrate also other data that can contribute for a more multifunctionality oriented management. In this exploratory study, the integration in the DST, of the preference distribution, as expressed by landscape users is investigated. The aim was to test a more comprehensive functioning of this tool, where non-production functions are also integrated. The described integration intended to communicate to decision-makers how the change in management practices at tree and under cover level, might alter the satisfaction of expectations of different user groups, as such changes affect the composition of the Montado, at both levels. The users considered are those practicing non-production functions in the Montado. Preferences were assessed through a questionnaire survey applied in the region of Alentejo, in the area of dominance of the cork oak, in the Montado system. The non-production functions are, in this context, related particularly to hunting, aesthetic appreciation related to walking and other leisure activities, to life quality, and to tradition and identity, as well as bee-keeping and mushroom picking. This paper focuses on the description of the specific methodological steps applied for the successful integration of the landscape preferences of different user groups into the DST for the cork oak Montado. Integration has proved to be possible, even if some methodological challenges still need to be faced for a more consistent use of the proposed tool.


Cork oak Montado Landscape preferences Landscape user groups Multifunctional management Single tree grow model CORKFITS 



This study was elaborated in the framework of the AGROREG project (AGRO768) and doctoral thesis (SFRH/BD/18633/2004) of the first author financed by Fundaçao Para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia in Portugal.


  1. Arriaza M, Cañas-Ortega J, Cañas-Madueño J, Ruiz-Aviles P (2004) Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 69:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belletti G, Brunori G, Marescotti A, Rossi A (2003) Multifunctionality and rural development: a multilevel approach. In: van Huylenbroeck G, Durand G (eds) Multifunctional agriculture. A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 55–80Google Scholar
  3. Blasco E, González-Olabarria JR, Rodriguéz-Veiga P, Pukkala T, Kolehmainen O, Palahí M (2009) Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia (North-east Spain). J For Res 20(1):73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brush R, Chenoweth RE, Barman T (2000) Group differences in the joyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 47:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buijs AE, Elands BHM, Langers F (2006) No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landsc Urban Plan 91:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canas I, Ayuga E, Ayuga F (2009) A contribution to the assessment of scenic quality of landscapes based on preferences expressed by the public. Land Use Policy 26:1173–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chew JD, Stalling C, Moeller K (2004) Integrating knowledge for simulating vegetation change at landscape scales. West J Appl For 19(2):102–108Google Scholar
  8. Cloquell-Ballester VA, Monterde-Diaz R, Santamarina-Siurana MC (2006) Indicators validation for the improvement of environmental and social quantitative assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 26:79–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coelho IS (2003) Propriedade da Terra e Política Florestal em Portugal. Silva Lus 11(2):185–199Google Scholar
  10. de Groot RS, Hein L (2005) Concept and valuation of landscape functions at different scales. In: Mander U, Wiggering H, Helming K (eds) Multifunctional land use. Meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. Springer, Berlin, pp 15–36Google Scholar
  11. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecolog Complex 7:260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Val G, Atauri J, de Lucio J (2006) Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 77:393–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dramstad W, Sundli Tveit M, Fjellstad W, Fry G (2006) Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc Urban Plan 78:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egoz S, Bowring J, Perkins H (2001) Tastes in tension: form, function, and meaning in New Zealand’s farmed landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 57:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekos Research Associates (1998) The use of social indicators as evaluation instruments. Final Report. Ekos Research Associates Inc., CanadaGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis EA, Bentrup G, Schoeneberger MM (2004) Computer-based tools for decision support in agroforestry: current state and future needs. Agrofor Syst 61:401–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fanariotu I, Skuras D (2004) The contribution of scenic beauty indicators in estimating environmental welfare measures: a case study. Soc Indic Res 65:145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fry G, Tveit MS, Ode A, Velarde MD (2009) The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecolog Indic 9(5):933–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grabaum R, Meyer B (1998) Multicriteria optimization of landscapes using GIS-based functional assessments. Landsc Urban Plan 43:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gustafson EJ, Lytle DE, Swaty R, Loehle C (2007) Simulating the cumulative effects of multiple forest management strategies on landscape measures of forest sustainability. Landsc Ecol 22:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hagerhall CM (2001) Consensus in landscape preference judgements. J Environ Psychol 21:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henkin Z, Hadar L, Noy-MeirHenkin I (2007) Human-scale structural heterogeneity induced by grazing in a Mediterranean woodland landscape. Landsc Ecol 22:577–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holmes J (2006) Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Gaps in the research agenda. J Rural Stud 22:142–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joffre R, Rambal S, Ratte JP (1999) The dehesa system of southern Spain and Portugal as a natural ecosystem mimic. Agrofor Syst 45:57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan S (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol 15:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keane RE, Holsinger LM, Pratt SD (2006) Simulating historical landscape dynamics using the landscape fire succession model LANDSUM version 4.0. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-171CD. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, p 73Google Scholar
  27. McNeely JA (2004) Nature versus nurture: managing relationships between forests, agroforestry and wild biodiversity. Agrofor Syst 61:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: health synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2003) Quality framework and guidelines for OECD statistical activities. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  31. Pinto-Correia T (1993) Threatened landscape in Alentejo, Portugal: the ‘Montado’ and other ‘agro-silvopastoral’ systems. Landsc Urban Plan 24:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinto-Correia T, Mascarenhas J (1999) Contribution to the extensification/intensificaion debate: new trends in the Portuguese Montado. Landsc Urban Plan 46:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pinto-Correia T, Vos W (2004) Multifunctionality in Mediterranean landscapes––past and future. In: Jongman R (ed) The new dimension of the European landscapes. Wageningen FRONTIS Series, Springer, Dordrecht pp 135–164Google Scholar
  34. Pinto-Correia T, Gustavsson R, Pirnat J (2006) Bridging the gap between centrally defined policies and local decisions. Towards more sensitive and creative rural landscape management. Landsc Ecol 21:333–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pretzsch H, Biber P, Dursky J (2002) The single tree-based stand simulator SILVA: construction, application and evaluation. For Ecol Manag 162(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pukkala T, Kellomäki S, Mustonen E (1988) Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scand J For Res 3:533–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pukkala T, Nuutinen T, Kangas J (1995) Integrating scenic and recreational amenities into numerical forest planning. Landsc Urban Plan 32:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ribeiro NA, Surový P, Oliveira AC (2006) Modelling cork oak production in Portugal. In: Hasenauer Hubert (ed) Sustainable forest management growth models for Europe. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 285–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robinson GM (2008) Sustainable Rural Systems. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, p 210Google Scholar
  40. Sayadi S, González-Roa MC, Calatrava-Requena J (2009) Public preferences for landscape features: the case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 26:334–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schafer D, Seibel S, Radermacher W (2004) Umweltindikatoren und Umweltziele. Anforderungen aus statistischer Sicht. In: Wiggering H, Müller F (eds) Umweltziele und Umweltindikatoren. Geowissenschaften + Umwelt. Springer-verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shifley SR, Thompson FR, Larsen DR, Dijak WD (2000) Modeling forest landscape change in the Missouri Ozarks under alternative management practices. Comput Electron Agric 27:7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Silvennoinen H, Alho J, Kolehmainen O, Pukkala T (2001) Prediction models of landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landsc Urban Plan 56(1):11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 group. Landsc Res 33(3):311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Swanwick C (2009) Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 26S:S62–S75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tveit MS (2009) Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. J Environ Manag 90:2882–2888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verje H, Abildtrup J, Andersen E, Andersen P, Brandt J, Busck A, Dalgaard T, Hasler B, Huusom H, Kristensen L, Kristensen S, Praestholm S (2007) Multifunctional agriculture and multifunctional landscapes–land use as an interface. In: Mander U, Wiggering H (eds) Multifunctional land use: meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 93–104Google Scholar
  48. Wiggering H, Dalchow C, Glemnitz M, Helming K, Muller K, Schultz A, Stachow U, Zander P (2006) Indicators for multifunctional land use: linking socioeconomic requirements with landscape potentials. Ecol Indic 6:238–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson GA (2007) ‘Post-productivism’ or ‘non-productivism’? In: Wilson GA (ed) Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory perspective. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 113–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Surová
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Surový
    • 1
  • Nuno de Almeida Ribeiro
    • 1
  • Teresa Pinto-Correia
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group on Mediterranean Ecosystems and Landscapes/ICAAMUniversity of ÉvoraÉvoraPortugal

Personalised recommendations