Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aoki Y (1999) Review article: trends in the study of the psychological evaluation of landscape. Landsc Res 24:85–94. doi:10.1080/01426399908706552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W, Weiber R (2006) Multivariate analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung, 11th edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer N (2005) Für und wider Wildnis. Soziale Dimensionen einer aktuellen gesellschaftlichen Debatte. Bristol-Schriftenreihe Band 15. Haupt, Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • BFS (Bundesamt für Statistik) (2000) Landwirtschaftliche Betriebsstrukturerhebung. Neuchâtel

  • BFS (Bundesamt für Statistik) (2001) Die Bodennutzung der Schweiz—Arealstatistik 1979-85/1992–97. Bern

  • BFS (Bundesamt für Statistik) (2006) Statistisches Lexikon der Schweiz Online-Ausgabe. www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/infothek/lexikon/bienvenues_login/blank/zugang_lexikon.open.html. Cited 12 Jul 2007

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortz J (1999) Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourassa SC (1991) The aesthetics of landscape. Belhaven Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Buijs AE, Volker CM (1997) Publiek draagvlak voor natuur en natuurbeleid. SC-DLO report no. 546, Wageningen, The Netherlands

  • Caluori U, Hunziker M (2001) Der Wolf—Wildtier oder wildes Tier? Eine Deutungsmusteranalyse in der Schweizer Bevölkerung. For Snow Landsc Res 76:169–190

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Haan G, Lantermann E-D, Linneweber V, Reusswig F (2001) Typenbildung in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Umweltforschung. Leske und Budrich, Opladen

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 27–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD (1978) The “new environmental paradigm”: a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. J Environ Educ 9:10–19

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ermischer G (2004) Mental landscape: landscape as idea and concept. Landsc Res 29:371–383. doi:10.1080/0142639042000289019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon Thompson S, Barton M (1994) Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J Environ Psychol 14:199–210

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Birmensdorf

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    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 22:959–972. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grendstad G, Wollebaek D (1998) Greener still? An empirical examination of Eckersley’s ecocentric approach. Environ Behav 30:653–675. doi:10.1177/001391659803000504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson P (2000) Meaning of place: everyday experience and theoretical conceptualization. J Environ Psychol 21:5–16. doi:10.1006/jevp.2000.0185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:13–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunziker M (2000) Einstellungen der Bevölkerung zu möglichen Landschaftsentwicklungen in den Alpen. Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunziker M, Hoffmann CW, Wild-Eck S (2001) Die Akzeptanz von Wolf, Luchs und “Stadtfuchs”—Ergebnisse einer gesamtschweizerisch-repräsentativen Umfrage. For Snow Landsc Res 76:301–326

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 47–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson A (1995) The good, the bad and the ugly: science, aesthetics and environmental assessment. Biodivers Conserv 4:758–766. doi:10.1007/BF00158868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellert SR (1996) The value of life. Biological Diversity and Human Society, Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 193–220

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs A (1999) Ethics of nature. A Map. DeGruyter, Berlin New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood M (1999) Humans valuing nature: synthesising insights from philosophy, psychology and economics. Environ Values 8:381–401. doi:10.3197/096327199129341888

    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 44:177–198. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael M (1997) Environmental egalitarianism and ‘Who do you save?’ dilemmas. Environ Values 6:307–325. doi:10.3197/096327197776679112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton BG (1991) Toward unity among environmentalists. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton BG (2000) Biodiversity and environmental values: in search of a universal earth ethic. Biodivers Conserv 9:1029–1044. doi:10.1023/A:1008966400817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill J (1997) Managing without prices: the monetary valuation of biodiversity. Ambio 26:546–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen M (1997) The moral value of biodiversity. Ambio 26:541–545

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 5–47

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell T, Peron E, Berto R (2001) Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environ Behav 33:93–106. doi:10.1177/00139160121972882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 31–44

  • Sell JL, Zube EH (1986) Perceptions of and response to environmental change. J Archit Plann Res 1986:33–54

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 191–206

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soliva R, Bolliger J, Hunziker M (2009) Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landsc Res (accepted)

  • Stern PC, Dietz T (1994) The value basis of environmental concern. J Soc Issues 50:65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takacs D (1996) The idea of biodiversity. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor P (1986) Respect for nature. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 43–60

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 63–83

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 28:65–75

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Widegren Ö (1998) The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environ Behav 30:75–100. doi:10.1177/0013916598301004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Sciences in Landscape Research Group, Research Unit Economics and Social Sciences, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland

    Reto Soliva & Marcel Hunziker

Authors
  1. Reto Soliva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcel Hunziker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reto Soliva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Soliva, R., Hunziker, M. How do biodiversity and conservation values relate to landscape preferences? A case study from the Swiss Alps. Biodivers Conserv 18, 2483–2507 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9603-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9603-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation