Are interest groups different in the factors determining landscape preferences?

Abstract

In the last decades, rural landscape in Europe has evolved from an agricultural by-product to an important public good. This development creates not only new challenges to farming practices, it also makes participation and public involvement an indispensable tool for sustainable landscape planning. This is especially true for many European mountain regions, where tourism represents an important source of income and conflicts between locals’ and tourists’ interests should be avoided. In our study, we analyze whether discrepancies in the perception of the Alpine landscape can be located between locals and tourists and, if these differences exist, in which aspects these two groups are differing. A model employing three general factors able to describe landscape preferences regardless of the personal background is suggested and validated by confirmatory factor analysis. Our major finding shows that an attractive landscape for tourists does not have to be contradictory to a landscape that supports a high living quality for locals. Compromises in landscape planning between locals’ and tourists’ requirements seem often not to be necessary as they, generally, do not differ in the way they experience and assess the landscape.

The Impact of the Process of Academic Education on Differences in Landscape Perception between the Students of Environmental Engineering and Civil Engineering

“…The mosaic layout of fields, the domination of agricultural fields, green linear patterns and historical buildings are the main elements. This is the standard perception of the countryside, which is typical of farmers and tourists who want contact with the traditional countryside [13,14,37,51,52]. Sayadi et al [53] also stated that people aged 18-25 and people with a higher education had more appreciation for the agricultural landscape.…”

“…Sayadi et al [53] also stated that people aged 18-25 and people with a higher education had more appreciation for the agricultural landscape. In the literature there is mention of a good perception of meadows and pastures [37,50,51], as well as landscapes where agricultural areas are mixed with forests and tree lines [54], lakes and even urban areas [13]. In view of the respondents' place of residence-25.9% lived in rural areas and next 24.9% in small cities-with the presence of 40.4% of agricultural land in the total area of the region [42], this approach was expected.…”

“…In view of the respondents' place of residence-25.9% lived in rural areas and next 24.9% in small cities-with the presence of 40.4% of agricultural land in the total area of the region [42], this approach was expected. It should also be noted that people tend to get used to familiar landscapes to such an extent that they cease to respond to their dynamics and variability [51]. A positive human-landscape interaction, effecting the creation of harmonious and pretty complex landscapes, can be a key factor to acceptance of space by the locals and people from outside the rural areas [51,52].…”

Fifteen years of Landscape Online: Looking back at the development of an e-journal

“…Other studies in the field of ecosystem services explicitly address cultural dimensions (Wangai et al, 2017), participatory approaches (Koschke et al, 2014), scenarios (Rosenberg et al, 2014) and monetary valuation (Bastian et al, 2015). There were several articles related to cultural valuations of landscape, including sacred sites in Morocco (Jäckle et al, 2013), meanings and symbolism of Persian gardens (Farahani et al, 2016), preferences of European mountain regions (Bacher et al, 2016), or about the traditional Umbrian landscape in Italy (Torquati et al, 2017). In addition, Zurlini et al (2015) published a theoretical reflection on sustainable landscape development and value rigidity, demanding to reappraise values like in the case of 'the Pirsig's monkey trap'.…”

The Emotional and Cognitive Scale of the Human–Nature Relationship (ECS-HNR)

“…Against the backdrop of this ancestral connection, and in spite of the modern detachment between humans and nature, the HN relationship can still be understood as a primitive human necessity. As Wilson (1984) explains in the biophilia hypothesis he proposed, as a living organism humans are intrinsically compelled to share time and physical space with other living organisms (see, for example, Bacher et al, 2016;Røskaft et al, 2007). Guided by these conceptions, scholars have made exceptional efforts to understand the HN relationship, particularly using scales that examine different aspects of this relationship, such as affectiveness (e.g., Cheng & Monroe, 2012), connectedness (F. S. Mayer & Frantz, 2004), and environmental identity (Clayton, 2003).…”