Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Visual Perception of Habitats Adopted for Post-Mining Landscape Rehabilitation

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study presented here focuses on visual preferences expressed by respondents for five relatively natural habitat types used in land reclamation projects in the North-West Bohemian brown coal basins (Czech Republic). Respondents evaluated the perceived beauty of the habitat types using a photograph questionnaire, on the basis of the positively skewed 6-point Likert scale. The order of the habitat types, from most beautiful to least beautiful, was: managed coniferous forest, wild deciduous forest, managed deciduous forest, managed mixed forest, and managed grassland. Higher visual preferences were indicated for older forest habitats (30–40 years old) than for younger habitats (10–20 years old). In addition, respondents preferred wild deciduous forest to managed deciduous forest. Managed grasslands and non-native managed coniferous forests were preferred by older people with a lower level of education and low income living in the post-mining area. On the other hand, native, wild deciduous forest was awarded the highest perceived beauty score by younger, more educated respondents with higher income, living outside the post-mining landscapes. The study confirms differences in the perception of various forms of land reclamation by residents vs. non-residents, and its findings also confirm the need for sociological research in post-mining landscapes within the process of designing rehabilitated landscapes. From the visual standpoint, the results of our study also support the current trend toward using natural succession in the reclamation of post-mining landscapes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Balling JD, Falk JH (1982) Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behaviour 14:5–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bejček V, Šťastný K (1984) The succession of bird communities on spoil banks after surface brown coal mining. Ecologia Polska 32:245–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger A (2002) Reclaiming the American West. Princeton Architectural Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunson MW, Steel BS (1996) Sources of variation in attitudes and beliefs about federal rangeland management. Journal of Range Management 49:69–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson A (2001) Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: seeing and knowing. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW (eds) Forest and landscapes. Linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CAB International, Oxon, UK, pp 31–41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel TD (2001) Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW (eds) Forest and landscapes. Linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series, No. 6. CAB International, Oxon, UK, pp 15–29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dentoni V, Massacci G (2007) Visibility of surface mining and impact perception. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 21:6–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durrant JO, Shumway JM (2004) Attitudes toward wilderness study areas: a survey of six Southeastern Utah counties. Environmental Management 33:271–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan TS, Anderson S (2008) Mapping perceived wilderness to support protected areas management in the San Juan National Forest, Colorado. Forest Ecology and Management 256:1039–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frouz J, Nováková A (2005) Development of soil microbial properties in topsoil layer during spontaneous succession in heaps after brown coal mining in relation to humus microstructure development. Geoderma 129:54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillarová H, Trpák P, Trpáková I, Sýkorová Z, Pecharová E (2008) Landscape memory as a solution of the ecological stability of the territory after mining. Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi 24:289–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Habron D (1998) Visual perception of wild land in Scotland. Landscape Urban Plan 42:45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han KT (2007) Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environment and Behaviour 39:529–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hands DE, Brown RD (2002) Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape Urban Plan 58:57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrychová M, Šálek M, Červenková A (2008) Invertebrate communities in man-made and spontaneously developed forests on spoil heaps after coal mining. Journal of Landscape Studies 1:169–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull RB, Buhyoff GJ (1986) The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: an attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts. Forest Science 32:271–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen FS (1999) Forest recreation in Denmark from the 1970s to the 1990s. The research series, vol 26. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hoersholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T (2002) Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape Urban Plan 59:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S (1979) Perception and landscape: conceptions and misconceptions. In: Proceedings of our national landscapes: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource, USDA Forest service General Technical Report PSW-35. Pacific southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkley, CA

  • Lamb RJ, Purcell AT (1990) Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landscape Urban Plan 19:333–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lien JN, Buhyoff GJ (1986) Extension of visual quality models for urban forests. Environmental Management 22:245–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons E (1983) Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behaviour 15:487–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martiš M, Zdražil V, Kašparová I, Svoboda I, Pecharová E (2008) Strategy for reconstructing the ecological and aesthetic functions of the Kladno region landscape disturbed by hard coal mining. Journal of Landscape Studies 1:103–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Misgav A, Amir S (2001) Integration of visual quality considerations in development of Israeli vegetation management policy. Environmental Management 27:845–857

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 14:161–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Ode Å, Fry G, Tveit MS, Messager P, Miller D (2009) Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 90:375–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prach K, Pysek P (2001) Using spontaneous succession for restoration of human-disturbed habitats: experience from Central Europe. Ecological Engineering 17:55–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price JS, McLaren RG, Rudolph DL (2009) Landscape restoration after oil sands mining: conceptual design and hydrological modelling for fen reconstruction. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 24:109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell T, Lamb RJ, Mainardi Peron E, Falchero S (1994) Preference or preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology 14:195–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribe RG (1991) A test of differences in scenic perceptions and needs across the recreation opportunity spectrum. Final report, cooperative research agreement NC-89-08. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Robottom I, Hart P (1993) Research in environmental education: engaging the debate. Deakin University Press, Geelong, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruso B, Renninger LA, Atzwanger K (2003) Human habitat preferences: a generative territory for evolutionary aesthetics research. In: Voland E, Grammer K (eds) Evolutionary aesthetics. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 279–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvé L (2005) Currents in environmental education: Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 10:11–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder HW (1989) Esthetic perception of the urban forest: a utility perspective. Journal of Arboriculture 15:292–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz F, Wiegleb G (2000) Development options of natural habitats in a post mining landscape. Land Degradation and Development 11:99–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard SRJ (2001) Beyond visual resource management: emerging theories of an ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW (eds) Forests and landscapes—linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. IUFRO research series no. 6. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 149–172

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sklenicka P, Charvatova E (2003) Stand continuity—a useful parameter for ecological networks in post-mining landscapes. Ecological Engineering 20:287–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sklenicka P, Lhota T (2002) Landscape heterogeneity—the quantitative criterion for landscape reconstruction. Landscape Urban Plan 58:147–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinitz C (1990) Toward a sustainable landscape of high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the loop road in Acadia National Park, USA. Landscape Urban Plan 19:213–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strumse E (1996) Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16:17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahvanainen L, Tyrväinen L, Ihalainen M, Vuorela N, Kolehmainen O (2001) Forest management and public perceptions—Visual versus verbal information. Landscape Urban Plan 53:53–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tveit M, Ode Å, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31:229–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyrväinen L, Silvennoinen H, Kolehmainen O (2003) Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1:135–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich RS (1986) Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan 13:29–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg AE, Koole SL (2006) New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan 78:362–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg AE, Vlek CAJ, Coeterier JF (1998) Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18:141–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virden RJ (1990) A comparison study of wilderness users and non-users: implications for managers and policymakers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 8:13–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Zube EH, Pitt DG (1981) Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landscape Plan 8:69–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grant no. NPVII 2BO 8006 “New approaches to research of effective procedures for recultivation and rehabilitation of devastated regions”, and by grant-aided project ME 897 of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports “Landscape-architectural principles of rural landscape restoration”. The authors owe special thanks to Robin Healey for his useful advice on English language presentation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, 165 21, Prague, Czech Republic

    Petr Sklenicka & Kristina Molnarova

Authors
  1. Petr Sklenicka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristina Molnarova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petr Sklenicka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K. Visual Perception of Habitats Adopted for Post-Mining Landscape Rehabilitation. Environmental Management 46, 424–435 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9513-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9513-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation