Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence synthesis in landscape aesthetics: an honourable endeavour yet insufficient applicable knowledge

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Socio-Ecological Practice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Considerable research effort, over more than 30 years, has been directed toward better understanding of the way people respond to diverse and changing landscapes. Knowledge of human responses to a changing world is an essential ingredient in successful implementation of measures which protect our socio-ecological wellbeing. However, decision-making seldom flows from individual pieces of research. Evidence needs to be synthesised through systematic procedures, including meta-analysis, before having even the potential to influence policy makers. This paper reviews evidence synthesis in the field of landscape aesthetics, especially in the context of wind energy and forest management. It looks then at the impact of this research, as expressed in guidelines and policies and finds that while there are some meaningful links, the individuality of each landscape change makes empirical findings hard to generalise, beyond a rather superficial level, and their application, especially in a political context, problematic.

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

  • Addison PFE, Flander LB, Cook CN (2015) Are we missing the boat? Current uses of long-term biological monitoring data in the evaluation and management of marine protected areas. J Environ Manage 149:148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antrop M (2005) From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape management. In: Tress B, Tress G, Fry G, Opdam P (eds) From landscape research to landscape planning—aspects of integration. Education and application. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 27–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman MH (2006) Climate change as a predictable surprise. Clim Change 77(1):179–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9058-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biber E (2012) Which science? Whose science? How scientific disciplines can shape environmental law. Univ Chic Law Rev 79:471–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigerna S, Polinori P (2015) Assessing the determinants of renewable electricity acceptance integrating meta-analysis regression and a local comprehensive survey. Sustainability 7:11909–11932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop ID (1996) Comparing regression and neural net based approaches to modelling of scenic beauty. Landsc Urban Plan 34:125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop ID (2002) Determination of thresholds of visual impact: the case of wind turbines. Environ Plann B Plann Des 29:707–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop ID (2011) What do we really know? A meta-analysis of studies into public responses to wind energy. In: World renewable energy congress, Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköping, Sweden, pp 4161–4169

  • Bishop ID (2019) Classifying human interventions in nature as a framework for ecological wisdom development. In: B. Yang and R. Young (eds) Ecological wisdom. EcoWISE (Innovative approaches to socio-ecological sustainability). Springer, Singapore (pp. 69–86) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0571-9_5

  • Bishop ID, Ye W-S, Karadaglis C (2001) Experiential approaches to perception response in virtual worlds. Landsc Urban Plann 54:115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush RO, Shafer EL (1975) Application of a landscape-preference model to land management. In: Zube EH, Brush RO, Fabos JG (eds) Landscape assessment: values, perceptions and resources, vol 1. Halstead Press, Stroudsburg, pp 168–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Land Management (1980) Visual resource management program. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC, p 40

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgman M, Franklin J, Hayes KR, Hosack GR, Peters GW, Sisson SA (2012) Modeling extreme risks in ecology. Risk Anal 32:1956–1966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claudet J, Osenberg CW, Benedetti-Cecchi L, Domenici P, Garcia-Charton JA, Perez-Ruzafa A, Badalamenti F, Bayle-Sempere J, Brito A, Bulleri F, Culioli J-M, Dimech M, Falcon JM, Guala I, Milazzo M, Sanchez-Meca J, Somerfield PJ, Stobart B, Vandeperre F, Valle C, Planes S (2008) Marine reserves: size and age do matter. Ecol Lett 11:481–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (2013) Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence

  • Conrad E, Christie M, Fazey I (2011) Is research keeping up with changes in landscape policy? A review of the literature. J Environ Manage 92(9):2097–2108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke SJ (2018) From frustration to fruition in applied conservation research and practice: ten revelations. Socio Ecol Pract Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-018-0002-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, D’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention and Explanatory Report. T-LAND 6. Strasbourg

  • Cvitanovic C, Fulton CJ, Wilson SK, van Kerkhoff L, Cripps IL, Muthiga N (2014) Utility of primary scientific literature to environmental managers: an international case study on coral-dominated marine protected areas. Ocean Coast Manage 102:72–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cvitanovic C, Cunningham R, Dowd A-M, Howden SM, van Putten EI (2017) Using social network analysis to monitor and assess the effectiveness of knowledge brokers at connecting scientists and decision-makers: an Australian case study. Environ Policy Gov 27(3):256–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel TC, Vining J (1983) Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman I, Wohlwill JF (eds) Behavior and the natural envionment. Plenum, New York, pp 39–84

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot R (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75(3):175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dramstad WE, Fjellstad WJ (2011) Landscapes: bridging the gaps between science, policy and people. Landsc Urban Plan 100:330–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4):465–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte GT, Santos PM, Cornelissen TG, Ribeiro MC, Paglia AP (2018) The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services. Landsc Ecol 33(8):1247–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0673-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes JP, Guiomar N, Gil A (2015) Strategies for conservation planning and management of terrestrial ecosystems in small islands (exemplified for the Macaronesian islands). Environ Sci Policy 51:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes JP, Guiomar N, Gil A (2019) Identifying key factors, actors and relevant scales in landscape and conservation planning, management and decision making: promoting effective citizen involvement. J Nat Conserv 47:12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2018.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford RM, Williams KJH, Bishop ID, Hickey JE (2009a) Public judgements of the social acceptability of silvicultural alternatives in Tasmanian wet eucalypt forests. Aust For 72(4):157–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford RM, Williams KJH, Bishop ID, Hickey JE (2009b) Effects of information on the social acceptability of alternatives to clearfelling in Australian wet eucalypt forests. Environ Manage 44(6):1149–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford R, Williams KJH, Smith EL, Bishop ID (2014) Beauty, belief and trust: towards a model of physiological processes in public acceptance of forest management. Environ Behav 46:476–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH (1999) An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landsc J 18(1):54–64. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.18.1.54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22(7):959–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greig PJ (1986) Forest policy developments in Victoria. Aust For 49(4):197–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049158.1986.10674479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grêt-Regamey A, Bishop ID, Bebi P (2007) Predicting the scenic beauty value of mapped landscape changes in a mountainous region using GIS. Environ Plan 34:50–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grêt-Regamey A, Bebi P, Bishop ID, Schmid WA (2008) Linking GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region. J Environ Manage 89(3):197–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen VS, Frivold LH (2008) Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban For Urban Green 7(4):241–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen V, Stange EE, Kaltenborn BP, Vistad OI (2017) Public visual preferences for dead wood in natural boreal forests: the effects of added information. Landsc Urban Plan 158:12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale S (2010) The new politics of climate change: why we are failing and how we will succeed. Environ Politics 19:255–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903576900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges LV, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods in meta-analysis. Academic Press, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill D, Daniel TC (2007) Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: Can information alter landscape preferences? Soc Nat Resour 21(1):34–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701655700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S (1987) Aesthetics, affect, and cognition—environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environ Behav 19:3–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S, Kaplan R, Wendt JS (1972) Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Percept Psychophys 12:354–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Brown T (1989) Environmental preference: a comparison of four domains of predictors. Environ Behav 21(5):509–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaniecki K, Leventon J, Abson DJ (2018) Human–nature connectedness as a ‘treatment’ for pro-environmental behavior: making the case for spatial considerations. Sustain Sci 13(5):1375–1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0578-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp L, Ladenburg J (2015) How spatial relationships influence economic preferences for wind power-a review. Energy 8:6177–6201

    Google Scholar 

  • Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K (2013) Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kubiszewski I, Cleveland CJ, Endres PK (2010) Meta-analysis of net energy return for wind power systems. Renew Energy 35(1):218–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladenburg J, Lutzeyer S (2012) The economics of visual disamenity reductions of offshore wind farms—review and suggestions from an emerging field. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:6793–6802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen PO, von Ins M (2010) The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics 84:575–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 81(2):221–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li W, Zhao Y (2015) Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period. Environ Impact Assess Rev 50:158–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4):177–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lothian A (2017) The science of scenery: how we see scenic beauty, what it is, why we love it, and how to measure and map it. A print-on-demand (or Kindle) book available through Amazon.com

  • Lovreglio R, Fonzone A, dell’Olio L (2016) A mixed logit model for predicting exit choice during building evacuations. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 92:59–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.06.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattmann M, Logar I, Brouwer R (2016) Wind power externalities: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 127:23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milcu AI, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J (2013) Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc 18(3). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269377

  • Mirasgedis S, Tourkolias C, Tzovla E, Diakoulaki D (2014) Valuing the visual impact of wind farms: an application in South Evia, Greece. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 39:296–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neyland M, Hickey J, Read SM (2012) A synthesis of outcomes from the Warra Silvicultural Systems Trial, Tasmania: safety, timber production, economics, biodiversity, silviculture and social acceptability. Aust For 75(3):147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2012.10676397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSW Department of Planning and Environment (2016) Wind energy: visual assessment bulletin. https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/-/media/Files/DPE/Bulletins-and-Community-Updates/wind-energy-visual-assessment-bulletin-2016-12.pdf

  • NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (2011) NSW planning guidelines; wind farms. Dept. of Planning and Infrastructure, State of New South Wales

    Google Scholar 

  • Ode Å, Fry G (2002) Visual aspects in urban woodland management. Urban For Urban Green 1:15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ode Å, Tveit MS, Fry G (2010) Advantages of using different data sources in assessment of landscape change and its effect on visual scale. Ecol Ind 10:24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary BC, Kvist K, Bayliss HR, Derroire G, Healey JR, Hughes K et al (2016) The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation. Environ Sci Policy 64:75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orland B (1986) Image advantage: computer visual simulations. Landsc Archit 76(1):58–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons R, Daniel TC (2002) Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plan 60(1):43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00051-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pautasso M (2012) Publication growth in biological sub-fields: patterns, predictability and sustainability. Sustainability 4:3234–3247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Bieling C (2012) Connecting cultural landscapes to resilience. In: Plieninger T, Bieling C (eds) Resilience and the cultural landscape. Understanding and managing change in human-shaped environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Draux H, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Bürgi M, Kizos T et al (2016) The driving forces of landscape change in Europe: a systematic review of the evidence. Land Use Policy 57:204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullin AS, Knight TM (2012) Science informing policy—a health warning for the environment. Environ Evid 1:15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullin AS, Knight AT, Stone DA, Charman K (2004) Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biol Conserv 119:245–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribe RG (1989) The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us? Environ Manage 13(1):55–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribe RG (2018) Can professional aesthetic landscape assessments become more truly robust? Challenges, opportunities, and a model of landscape appraisal. In: Paper presented at the visual resource stewardship conference: landscape and seascape management in a time of change, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, Illinois. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-P-183

  • Rosenberger RS, Smith EL (1998) Nonmarket economic impacts of forest insect pests: a literature review. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-164. Pacific Southwest Research Station. USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA, 1997, p 38

  • Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Policy 7:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Natural Heritage (2012) Guidance: assessing the cumulative impacts of onshore wind energy developments (version 3). https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2017-09/A675503%20-%20Assessing%20the%20cumulative%20impact%20of%20onshore%20wind%20energy%20developments.pdf

  • Sevenant M, Antrop M (2009) Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J Environ Manage 90(9):2889–2899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer EL, Brush RO (1977) How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landsc Plan 4:237–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(77)90027-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shang H-D, Bishop ID (2000) Visual thresholds for detection, recognition and visual impact in landscape settings. J Environ Psychol 20(2):125–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard SRJ, Meitner M (2005) Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. For Ecol Manage 207(1–2 SPEC. ISS.), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032

  • Smardon R, Bishop I, Ribe R (2016) Managing new energy landscapes in the USA, Canada, and Australia. In: Apostol D, Smardon RC, Palmer JF, Sullivan R (eds) The renewable energy landscape: preserving scenic values in our sustainable future. Routledge, London, pp 41–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamps AE III (2004) Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: a meta-analysis. J Environ Psychol 24(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00023-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart GB, Kaiser MJ, Cote IM, Halpern BS, Lester SE, Bayliss HR, Pullin AS (2009) Temperate marine reserves: global ecological effects and guidelines for future networks. Conserv Lett 2:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strazzera E, Mura M, Contu D (2012) Combining choice experiments with psychometric scales to assess the social acceptability of wind energy projects: a latent class approach. Energy Policy 48:334–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan R, Meyer M (2014) Guide to evaluating visual impact assessments for renewable energy projects. Natural Resource Report NPS/ARD/NRR—2014/836. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado

  • Sung D-G, Lim S-H, Ko J-W, Cho G-S (2001) Scenic evaluation of landscape for urban design purposes using GIS and ANN. Landsc Urban Plan 56(1):75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00174-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasmania Forestry (2009) A new silviculture for Tasmania’s public forests: a review of the variable retention program. Forestry Tasmania, Hobart

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaxter CB, Buchanan GM, Carr J, Butchart SHM, Newbold T, Green RE et al (2017) Bird and bat species’ global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Sibille AD, Cloquell-Ballester VA, Cloquell-Ballester VA, Darton R (2009) Development and validation of a multicriteria indicator for the assessment of objective aesthetic impact of wind farms. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(1):40–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoutsos T, Tsouchlaraki A, Tsiropoulos M, Serpetsidakis M (2009) Visual impact evaluation of a wind park in a Greek island. Appl Energy 86(4):546–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tveit M, Ode Å, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc Res 31(3):229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Forestry Commission (2017) The UK forestry standard. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Newcastle (2002) Visual assessment of windfarms best practice. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA303A

  • USDA Forest Service (1995) Landscape aesthetics: a handbook for scenery management. Agriculture handbook, p 701

  • Uuemaa E, Mander Ü, Marja R (2013) Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: a review. Ecol Ind 28:100–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Berkel DB, Verburg PH (2014) Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Ind 37:163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade L, Whitehead H, Weilgart L (2010) Conflict of interest in research on anthropogenic noise and marine mammals: Does funding bias conclusions? Mar Policy 34:320–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter I, Ugelow JL (1979) Environmental policies in developing countries. Ambio 8(2/3):102–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Wen C, Dallimer M, Carver S, Ziv G (2018) Valuing the visual impact of wind farms: a calculus method for synthesizing choice experiments studies. Sci Total Environ 637–638:58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western Australian Planning Commission (2004) Guidelines for wind farm development. Perth: Western Australia Planning Commission Dept. for Planning and Infrastructure. http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/pb67May04.pdf

  • Williamson DN, Calder SW (1979) Visual resource management of Victoria’s forests: a new concept for Australia. Landsc Plan 6:313–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock P, Pullin AS, Kaiser MJ (2014) Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence syntheses in conservation and environmental science: a methodology. Biol Conserv 176:54–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiang WN (2018) Socio-Ecological Practice Research (SEPR): What does the journal have to offer? Soc Ecol Pract Res 1:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-018-0001-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG (1982) Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landsc Plan 9:1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Ian David Bishop

Authors
  1. Ian David Bishop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian David Bishop.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bishop, I.D. Evidence synthesis in landscape aesthetics: an honourable endeavour yet insufficient applicable knowledge. Socio Ecol Pract Res 1, 93–108 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00011-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00011-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation