Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Visual complexity and the montado do matter: landscape pattern preferences of user groups in Alentejo, Portugal

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Annals of Forest Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

• Context

The current paradigms for the sustainable development of forests and agriculture involve territorial organization of these activities as well as the multifunctionality of the related landscapes. Accordingly, the new management strategies need to take into account the suitability of the resulting landscapes to produce the goods and services expected by society.

• Aims

The aim of the study was to assess the preferred landscape patterns by different groups of users. In focus were the relations between the landscape metrics of preferred patterns and the individual characteristics of respondents.

• Methods

A regional quantitative survey of both production and different consumption landscape users was conducted in the Alentejo region, southern Portugal. Respondents composed their preferred patterns on a block diagram representing an area of landscape seen from a single view according to the existing topographic conditions in the study area.

• Results

In general, the visually complex landscape patterns were preferred more than the homogeneous ones. However, the metrics of preferred patterns varied between the user groups. The montado was the only land cover class that was present in the majority of preferred patterns.

• Conclusion

For landscape users in southern Portugal, the visually complex landscapes including the montado are essential to satisfy their expectations. This may be an important fact to be taken into account for policy and landscape management in the future.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersson F, Angelstam P, Feger KH, Hasenhauer H, Kräuchi N, Marell A, Matteuci G, Schneider U, Tabbush P (2005) A research strategy for sustainable forest management in Europe. COST Action E25 ENFORS Technical Report 5, GIP ECOFOR, Paris, 149 pp. ISBN 2-914770-08-1

  • Antrop M (1993) The transformation of the Mediterranean landscapes: an experience of 25 years of observations. Landscape Urban Plan 24:3–13. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(93)90076-P

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronson J, Pereira JS, Pausas JG, Ebrary I, Society for Ecological Restoration International (2009) Cork oak woodlands on the edge: ecology, adaptive management, and restoration. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Barroso F, Pinto-Correia T, Ramos I, Surova D, Menezes H (2012) Dealing with landscape fuzziness in preference studies: using photo based questionnaires in Mediterranean context/areas. Landscape Urban Plan 104:329–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bestard AB, Font AR (2009) Environmental diversity in recreational choice modeling. Ecol Econ 68:2743–2750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasco E, Gonzalez-Olabarria JR, Rodriguez-Veiga P, Pukkala T, Kolhemainen O, Palahi M (2009) Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia (north-east Spain). J Forest Res 20:73–78. doi:10.1007/s11676-009-0013-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugalho MN, Caldeira MC, Pereira JS, Aronson J, Pausas JG (2011) Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 9:278–286. doi:10.1890/100084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho-Ribeiro S, Migliozzi A, Incerti G, Pinto-Correia T (2013) Placing land cover pattern preferences on the map: bridging methodological approaches of landscape preference surveys and spatial pattern analysis. Landscape Urban Plan 114:53–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corral-Verdugo V, Bonnes M, Tapia-Fonllem C, Fraijo-Sing B, Frias-Armenta M, Carrus G (2009) Correlates of pro-sustainability orientation: the affinity towards diversity. J Environ Psychol 29:34–43. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De La Fuente De Val G, José Atauri M, Hermann Mühlhauser S (2004) Influence of landscape heterogeneity on scenery quality: the case of the Andean foothills in Santiago's Basin [Influencia de la heterogeneidad del paisaje en la calidad escénica: El caso precordillerano andino de la cuenca de Santiago]. Revista de Geografia Norte Grande (32), pp 87–105

  • Dobbertin MK, Nobis MP (2010) Exploring research issues in selected forest journals 1979–2008. Ann For Sci 67:800. doi:10.1051/forest/2010052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dramstad WE, Tveit MS, Fjellstad WJ, Fry GLA (2006) Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape Urban Plan 78:465–474. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards D, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagné C, Peace A, Weiss G (2012) Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a pan-European perspective. For Policy Econ 19:12–19. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank S, Fürst C, Koschke L, Witt A, Makeschin F (2013) Assessment of landscape aesthetics—validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecol Indic 32:222–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes JL (2005) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and training in forestry and forest research. For Chron 81:324–329. doi:10.5558/tfc81324-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden T, Sonnino R (2008) Rural development and the regional state: denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. J Rural Stud 24:422–431. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MCPFE (2007) State of Europe's forests 2007. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. Liaison Unit, Warsaw

  • Michelin Y, Joliveau T, Planchat C (2011) Landscape in participatory processes: tools for stimulating debate in landscape issues. In: Jones M, Stenseke M (eds) The European Landscape Convention, Challenges of Participation. Landscape Series, Springer, pp 145–175

  • Ode A, Fry G, Tveit MS, Messager P, Miller D (2009) Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J Environ Manage 90:375–383. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ode Å, Miller D (2011) Analysing the relationship between indicators of landscape complexity and preference. Environ Plann B 38:24–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto-Correia T, Barroso F, Menezes H (2010) The changing role of farming in a peripheric South European area: the challenge of the landscape amenities demand. In: Wiggering H, Ende HP, Knierim A, Pintar M (eds) Innovations in European rural landscapes. Springer, Berlin, pp 53–76

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto-Correia T, Ribeiro N, Sá-Sousa P (2011) Introducing the montado, the cork and holm oak agroforestry system of southern Portugal. Agrofor Syst 82:99–104. doi:10.1007/s10457-011-9388-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rametsteiner E, Eichler L, Berg J (2009) Shaping forest communication in the European Union: public perceptions of forests and forestry. Final Report. ECORYS, Rotterdam

  • Scott A (2002) Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experience. Landsc Res 27:271–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selman P (2012) Sustainable landscape planning. The Reconnection Agenda. Routledge, London, 162 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Seppälä R (2004) How to respond to emerging research needs in Europe: trends affecting forest research and strategies to face them. In: Baines C (ed) Forest research crossing borders. EFI Proc. 50:147–148

  • Sevenant M, Antrop M (2010) The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy 27:827–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Agr 38:189–194. doi:10.5367/000000009788632340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanwick C (2009) Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 26:62–75. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tveit M, Ode A, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc Res 31:229–255. doi:10.1080/01426390600783269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Ploeg JD, Roeg D (2003) Multifunctionality and rural development: the actual situation in Europe. In: Van Huylenbroeck G, Durand G (eds) Multifunctional agriculture. A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Ashgate, Burlington, VT

    Google Scholar 

  • Zandersen M, Tol RSJ (2009) A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe. J Forest Econ 15:109–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The survey was funded by the IN-Alentejo Programme, the Regional Coordination and Development Commission of Alentejo CCDR-AL, Portugal, and the Regional Delegation of Portuguese Ministry of Agriculture in Alentejo (DRAPAL), Portugal. The first author wishes to acknowledge also the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) for the post doc scholarship n. PE12077.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICAAM—Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais Mediterrânicas, Universidade de Évora, Núcleo da Mitra, Ap. 94, 7002-554, Évora, Portugal

    Diana Surová & Teresa Pinto-Correia

  2. Risk Analysis Research Center, Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 10-3 Midori-cho, Tachikawa, Tokyo, 190-8562, Japan

    Diana Surová

  3. DPAO—Departamento de Paisagem, Ambiente e Ordenamento, Escola de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade de Évora, Colégio Luis Verney, Rua Romão Ramalho 59, Évora, Portugal

    Teresa Pinto-Correia

  4. Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamycka 1176, 165-21, Praha 6—Suchdol, Czech Republic

    Róbert Marušák

Authors
  1. Diana Surová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teresa Pinto-Correia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Róbert Marušák
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Surová.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Paulo Sá-Sousa

Contribution of the authors

Diana Surová: survey design and execution, running data analysis, writing the paper.

Teresa Pinto-Correia: coordinating research project, survey design, writing the paper.

Róbert Marušák: running data analysis, writing the paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Surová, D., Pinto-Correia, T. & Marušák, R. Visual complexity and the montado do matter: landscape pattern preferences of user groups in Alentejo, Portugal. Annals of Forest Science 71, 15–24 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-013-0330-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-013-0330-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation