Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 2483–2507 | Cite as

How do biodiversity and conservation values relate to landscape preferences? A case study from the Swiss Alps

  • Reto Soliva
  • Marcel Hunziker
Original Paper


The importance of the values underlying different concepts of biodiversity conservation and landscape planning is increasingly recognised, and yet these value judgements of the public and of experts are still poorly understood. Although landscape and conservation management are closely interrelated and measures in one field are likely to have effects on the other, the relationship between biodiversity and conservation values on the one hand, and landscape preferences on the other hand, has been hardly explored so far. This study represents a first attempt to empirically examine this relationship from an integrated perspective, considering philosophical, ecological and economic aspects and using items focused on biodiversity. We used a quantitative survey of the general Swiss population with visualisations of potential landscape developments in the Swiss Alps and items related to biodiversity- and conservation-values. Our research shows that respondents who prefer reforested landscapes tend to be more concerned about the conservation of species, landscapes, and natural processes than people preferring cultural landscapes. Respondents who prefer cultural landscapes are more oriented towards utilitarian values and are overrepresented in mountain areas as compared to the lowlands, thus in areas that are more likely to become the target of conservation measures. Our findings have practical implications for conservation in Switzerland and other mountainous areas, particularly in times of agricultural decline and land abandonment and their associated changes in landscape and biodiversity.


Biodiversity values Cultural landscapes Landscape preferences Public Reforestation Switzerland 



We are grateful to all participants of the survey, to several members of WSL-staff for their help with the layout and mailing of the questionnaire, and to Nicole Bauer for statistical advice. We would also like to thank the Swiss Federal Statistical Office for drawing the sample. This work was supported by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research.


  1. Aoki Y (1999) Review article: trends in the study of the psychological evaluation of landscape. Landsc Res 24:85–94. doi: 10.1080/01426399908706552 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W, Weiber R (2006) Multivariate analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung, 11th edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry D, Oelschlaeger M (1996) A Science for survival: values and conservation biology. Conserv Biol 10:905–911. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10030904-2.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer N (2005) Für und wider Wildnis. Soziale Dimensionen einer aktuellen gesellschaftlichen Debatte. Bristol-Schriftenreihe Band 15. Haupt, BernGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer N, Wallner A, Hunziker M (2009) The change of European landscapes: human-nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for landscape management in Switzerland. J Environ Manag doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.021 (in print)
  6. BFS (Bundesamt für Statistik) (2000) Landwirtschaftliche Betriebsstrukturerhebung. NeuchâtelGoogle Scholar
  7. BFS (Bundesamt für Statistik) (2001) Die Bodennutzung der Schweiz—Arealstatistik 1979-85/1992–97. BernGoogle Scholar
  8. BFS (Bundesamt für Statistik) (2006) Statistisches Lexikon der Schweiz Online-Ausgabe. Cited 12 Jul 2007
  9. Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP (1999) The relationship of ecocentric and anthropocentric motives to attitudes toward large carnivores. J Environ Psychol 19:415–421. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolliger J, Kienast F, Soliva R, Rutherford G (2007) Spatial sensitivity of species habitat patterns to scenarios of land use change (Switzerland). Landsc Ecol 22:773–789. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9077-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bortz J (1999) Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler, 5th edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourassa SC (1991) The aesthetics of landscape. Belhaven Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Buijs AE, Volker CM (1997) Publiek draagvlak voor natuur en natuurbeleid. SC-DLO report no. 546, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  14. Caluori U, Hunziker M (2001) Der Wolf—Wildtier oder wildes Tier? Eine Deutungsmusteranalyse in der Schweizer Bevölkerung. For Snow Landsc Res 76:169–190Google Scholar
  15. Caro T, Engilis A Jr, Fitzherbert E, Gardner T (2003) Preliminary assessment of the flagship species concept at a small scale. Anim Conserv 7:63–70. doi: 10.1017/S136794300300115X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costanza R, Arge R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniel TC (2001) Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan 54:267–287. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Groot WT, van den Born RJG (2003) Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan 63:127–138. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00184-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Haan G, Lantermann E-D, Linneweber V, Reusswig F (2001) Typenbildung in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Umweltforschung. Leske und Budrich, OpladenGoogle Scholar
  20. Duelli P, Obrist MK (2003) Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:87–98. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00072-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duelli P, Baur P, Buchecker M, Gugerli F, Holderegger R, Wohlgemuth T (2007) The role of value systems in biodiversity research. In: Kienast F, Wildi O, Ghosh S (eds) A changing world. Challenges for landscape research. Springer landscape series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 27–34Google Scholar
  22. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD (1978) The “new environmental paradigm”: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. J Environ Educ 9:10–19Google Scholar
  23. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Emmet Jones R (2000) Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues 56:425–442. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ermischer G (2004) Mental landscape: landscape as idea and concept. Landsc Res 29:371–383. doi: 10.1080/0142639042000289019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischer A, van der Wal R (2007) Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird—the construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biol Conserv 135:256–257. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fischer A, Young JC (2007) Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biol Conserv 136:271–282. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gagnon Thompson S, Barton M (1994) Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J Environ Psychol 14:199–210Google Scholar
  28. Gehring K (2006) Landscape needs and notions: preferences, expectations, leisure motivation, and the concept of landscape from a cross-cultural perspective. Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, BirmensdorfGoogle Scholar
  29. Gellrich M, Baur P, Koch B, Zimmermann N (2007) Agricultural land abandonment and natural forest re-growth in the Swiss mountains: a spatially explicit economic analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:93–108. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22:959–972. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grendstad G, Wollebaek D (1998) Greener still? An empirical examination of Eckersley’s ecocentric approach. Environ Behav 30:653–675. doi: 10.1177/001391659803000504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gustafson P (2000) Meaning of place: everyday experience and theoretical conceptualization. J Environ Psychol 21:5–16. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2000.0185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hartig T, Staats H (2006) The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. J Environ Psychol 26:215–226. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunter LM, Brehm JM (2004) A qualitative examination of value orientations toward wildlife and biodiversity by rural residents of the intermountain region. Hum Ecol Rev 11:13–26Google Scholar
  35. Hunziker M (2000) Einstellungen der Bevölkerung zu möglichen Landschaftsentwicklungen in den Alpen. Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, BirmensdorfGoogle Scholar
  36. Hunziker M, Hoffmann CW, Wild-Eck S (2001) Die Akzeptanz von Wolf, Luchs und “Stadtfuchs”—Ergebnisse einer gesamtschweizerisch-repräsentativen Umfrage. For Snow Landsc Res 76:301–326Google Scholar
  37. Hunziker M, Buchecker M, Hartig T (2007) Space and place—two aspects of the human-landscape relationship. In: Kienast F, Wildi O, Ghosh S (eds) A changing world. Challenges for landscape research. Springer landscape series, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 47–62Google Scholar
  38. Johnson A (1995) The good, the bad and the ugly: science, aesthetics and environmental assessment. Biodivers Conserv 4:758–766. doi: 10.1007/BF00158868 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T (2002) Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc Urban Plan 59:1–11. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kellert SR (1996) The value of life. Biological Diversity and Human Society, Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Körner S (2005) Nature conservation, forestry, landscape architecture and historic preservation: perspectives for a conceptual alliance. In: Kowarik I, Körner S (eds) Wild urban woodlands. New perspectives for urban forestry. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krebs A (1999) Ethics of nature. A Map. DeGruyter, Berlin New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Lange E (1994) Integration of computerized visual simulation and visual assessment in environmental planning. Landsc Urban Plan 30:99–112. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(94)90070-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lange E (2001) The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 54:163–182. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00134-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lockwood M (1999) Humans valuing nature: synthesising insights from philosophy, psychology and economics. Environ Values 8:381–401. doi: 10.3197/096327199129341888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lothian A (1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landsc Urban Plan 44:177–198. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Michael M (1997) Environmental egalitarianism and ‘Who do you save?’ dilemmas. Environ Values 6:307–325. doi: 10.3197/096327197776679112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nakamae E, Qin X, Tadamura K (2001) Rendering of landscapes for environmental assessment. Landsc Urban Plan 54:19–32. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00123-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Norton BG (1991) Toward unity among environmentalists. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Norton BG (2000) Biodiversity and environmental values: in search of a universal earth ethic. Biodivers Conserv 9:1029–1044. doi: 10.1023/A:1008966400817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Neill J (1997) Managing without prices: the monetary valuation of biodiversity. Ambio 26:546–550Google Scholar
  52. Oksanen M (1997) The moral value of biodiversity. Ambio 26:541–545Google Scholar
  53. Orland B, Budthimedhee K, Uusitalo J (2001) Considering virtual worlds as representations of landscape realities and as tools for landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 54:139–148. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00132-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palmer JF (1997) Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscape change. Landsc Urban Plan 37:83–97. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00375-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Piechocki R (2001) Zum Wandel des Naturschutzverständnisses im Verlauf der letzten einhundert Jahre. In: Nationalpark Hochharz und Institut für Umweltgeschichte und Regionalentwicklung e.V. (eds) Von der Naturdenkmalpflege zum Prozessschutz in den Nationalparken. Verlag für Wissenschaft und Forschung, Berlin, pp 5–47Google Scholar
  56. Power ME, Tilman D, Estes JA, Menge BA, Bond WJ, Mills LS, Daily G, Castilla JC, Lubchenco J, Paine RT (1996) Challenges in the quest for keystones. Bioscience 46:609–620. doi: 10.2307/1312990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Purcell T, Peron E, Berto R (2001) Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environ Behav 33:93–106. doi: 10.1177/00139160121972882 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roberge JM, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol 18:76–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Salomon AK, Ruesink JL, DeWreede RE (2006) Population viability, ecological processes and biodiversity: valuing sites for reserve selection. Biol Conserv 128:79–92. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scherzinger W (1997) Tun oder unterlassen? Aspekte des Prozessschutzes und Bedeutung des “Nichts-Tuns” im Naturschutz. In: Wildnis—ein neues Leitbild!? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ungestörter Naturentwicklung in Mitteleuropa. Berichte der Bayerischen Akademie für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege, Laufen Salzach, pp 31–44Google Scholar
  61. Sell JL, Zube EH (1986) Perceptions of and response to environmental change. J Archit Plann Res 1986:33–54Google Scholar
  62. Singer P (1979) Not for humans only: the place of nunhumans in environmental issues. In: Goodpaster KE, Sayre KM (eds) Ethics and problems of the 21st century. Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame, pp 191–206Google Scholar
  63. Soini K, Aakkula J (2007) Framing the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes: the essence of local conceptions and constructions. Land use policy 24:311–321. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Soliva R (2007) Landscape stories: using ideal type narratives as a heuristic device in rural studies. J Rural Stud 23:62–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Soliva R, Hunziker M (2009) Beyond the visual dimension: using ideal type narratives to analyse people’s assessments of landscape scenarios. Land use policy 26:284–294. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Soliva R, Rønningen K, Bella I, Bezak P, Cooper T, Flø BE, Marty P, Potter C (2008) Envisioning upland futures: stakeholder responses to scenarios for Europe’s mountain landscapes. J Rural Stud 24:56–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Soliva R, Bolliger J, Hunziker M (2009) Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landsc Res (accepted)Google Scholar
  68. Stern PC, Dietz T (1994) The value basis of environmental concern. J Soc Issues 50:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Takacs D (1996) The idea of biodiversity. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  70. Taylor P (1986) Respect for nature. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  71. Tress B, Tress G (2003) Scenario visualization for participatory landscape planning—a study from Denmark. Landsc Urban Plan 64:161–178. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00219-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Van den Berg AE, Koole SL (2006) New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 78:362–372. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van den Berg AE, de Vries DH, Vlek CAJ (2006) Images of nature, environmental values and landscape preferences: exploring their Interrelationships. In: Van den Born RJG, Lenders RHJ, de Groot WT (eds) Visions of nature. A scientific exploration of people’s implicit philosophies regarding nature in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. LIT Verlag, Berlin, pp 43–60Google Scholar
  74. Van den Born RJG (2006) Implicit philosophy: images of relationships between humans and nature in the Dutch population. In: Van den Born RJG, Lenders RHJ, de Groot WT (eds) Visions of nature. A scientific exploration of people’s implicit philosophies regarding nature in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. LIT Verlag, Berlin, pp 63–83Google Scholar
  75. Van den Born RJG, Lenders RHJ, de Groot WT, Huijsman E (2001) The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in Western countries. Environ Conserv 28:65–75Google Scholar
  76. Van den Born RJG, Lenders RHJ, de Groot WT (eds) (2006) Visions of nature. A scientific exploration of people’s implicit philosophies regarding nature in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. LIT Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  77. Widegren Ö (1998) The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environ Behav 30:75–100. doi: 10.1177/0013916598301004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wood PM (1997) Biodiversity as the source of biological resources: a new look at biodiversity values. Environ Values 6:251–268. doi: 10.3197/096327197776679077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Sciences in Landscape Research Group, Research Unit Economics and Social SciencesSwiss Federal Research Institute WSLBirmensdorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations