Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences

Abstract

Why do group differences in landscape assessment exist? In the present paper, we explore the hypothesis that landscape preferences are associated with people’s environmental value orientations, operationalised according to Thompson and Barton’s [J. Environ. Psychol. 14 (1994) 199] distinctions between anthropocentric, ecocentric, and apathetic orientations toward the environment. Preferences for local landscapes and environmental value orientations were surveyed in a sample of the adult population of Røros, southern Norway. The highest preference was expressed for wildland scenes containing water, followed by cultural landscapes and traditional farm environments. Landscapes with elements of modern agricultural practises were the least preferred category. Significant positive correlations were found between the ecocentric environmental value orientation and a preference for wildlands with water, and for cultural landscapes. The anthropocentric value orientation correlated positively with a preference for farm environments, while environmental apathy was negatively associated with a preference for wildlands and cultural landscapes. The respondents agreed to ecocentric, but were neutral to anthropocentric statements. The findings indicate that the majority of the people in the area should be responsive to ecocentric arguments when development and conservation plans are presented.

Introduction

During the last 25 years, a large number of studies of affective and aesthetic evaluation of landscapes have been published (see reviews by Zube et al., 1975, Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, Bourassa, 1990). One consistent finding has been that people from various cultures prefer (like) natural environments better than built or otherwise human-influenced environments, and that park- or savannah-like landscapes often receive the highest ratings (Ulrich, 1993). Human influence may be appreciated, however, provided that it is perceived as in balance with natural elements, like in nature scenes containing old structures like stone walls or stone bridges (Strumse, 1994). In combination with findings which show that natural scenes contribute to restoration from stress (Ulrich et al., 1991), these studies have been interpreted as supporting an evolutionary theory of human landscape preferences. Several researchers have concluded that similarities in evaluations of natural scenes far outweigh the differences across cultures or smaller groups (Ulrich, 1993).

However, ever since Darwin, it has been recognised that genetic variation is one central part of evolution, and that such variation may facilitate adaptation to various or changing environments. Thus, individual and inter-group differences in environmental preferences are also expected within an evolutionary framework, in addition to the similarities referred to above. Accordingly, both cultural and genetic factors may contribute to evaluative responses to environmental types (Bourassa, 1990, Hartig, 1993). It has been shown that landscape preferences may change with age (Balling and Falk, 1982, Lyons, 1983, Zube et al., 1983), and that they may differ across demographic groups (Gonzalez-Bernaldez and Parra, 1979). More recently, Yu (1995) showed that living environment (urban versus rural), education level, and occupational interests influence landscape preferences of Chinese respondents. And in a Dutch study (van den Berg et al., 1998) farmers’ beauty ratings of various landscapes differed from the ratings of visitors and non-farming residents. In addition to differences across socio-demographic groups, individual personality traits may be related to landscape preferences. Zuckermann et al. (1993) found that the sensation-seeking trait was related to a relatively positive response to risk-evoking landscapes.

Our affective or aesthetic evaluation of landscapes is not an isolated mental process; it must instead necessarily be associated with additional and related affective and cognitive constructions that we have regarding our relationship with both society and our physical surroundings. According to social adaptation theory (Homer and Kahle, 1988), our general values are one type of cognitions that facilitate adaptation to the environment. Values have been defined as general and important life goals or standards which serve as guiding principles in our lives (Rokeach, 1973), and they are thought to determine attitudes and behaviour toward specific aspects of our environment. In addition to these general values, we may have values oriented toward a more restricted part of the environment, called basic beliefs or value orientations (Fulton et al., 1996). For example, most people evaluate environmental issues, thereby expressing their environmental value orientation. Attempts to measure aspects of environmental value orientations were made by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) and Dunlap et al. (1992). Their instrument (The New Environmental (Ecological) Paradigm Scale, NEP) has been widely used. Stern and Dietz (1994) distinguished between the egoistic value orientation (environmental problems may harm the individual), the social-altruistic value orientation (problems may harm other people), and the biocentric value orientation (nature has intrinsic rights, independent of human interests). Thompson and Barton (1994) proposed that the social-altruistic and the egoistic value orientations both are expressions of human interests in avoiding damage to the environment, thus, the two types of orientations were regarded as one type, named the anthropocentric attitude. They recognised the biocentric value orientation proposed by Stern and Dietz (1994) and named it the ecocentric attitude type. Thus, two different motives or reasons for people’s environmental concern may be identified (in addition to environmental apathy, which was not further studied by Thompson and Barton (1994)).

The concept of attitude is used about people’s tendency to respond favourably or unfavourably toward a class of objects or events. These classes may be more or less specific, however. The environmental value orientations measured by the researchers cited above are of a rather general nature (although called attitudes by some of the researchers), and are postulated (Homer and Kahle, 1988, Fulton et al., 1996) to influence more specific attitudes, like attitudes toward foreigners, wildlife, noise or even landscapes.

Returning to the study of landscape preferences, we can now draw a parallel to the study of environmental value orientations and attitudes. Many people may express a preference for specific landscapes, but for very different reasons. Some people may want to protect a landscape because it serves human utilitarian needs, while others may emphasise ecocentric values. For example, a productive river or a forest landscape may be preferred either because they may be harvested and thus, satisfy human needs (an anthopocentric motive), or because they have intrinsic value as an ecosystem (an ecocentric motive). Also, when individual or inter-group differences in landscape appraisals are found, they may be closely related to underlying differences in values and attitudes toward environmental issues. For example, when Chinese farmers responded negatively to water dominated and misty rocky scenes (Yu, 1995), and Dutch farmers were relatively negative to development plans involving wetness and non-cultivatedness (van den Berg et al., 1998), part of the explanation may be farmers’ relatively anthropocentric attitudes. These topics are salient both from a theoretical and land use management perspective. In a more overall sense, the issue centres on the question of the diverse meanings attributed to the landscape (Williams, 1995, Williams et al., 1992). Expanding the perspective from considerations of the functional capabilities of the landscape to values and socio-cultural meanings is probably one of the paramount challenges of future land use planning.

In this study, we analyse potential associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences in a study of how inhabitants of the Røros area in central Norway evaluated scenes from their own region. The research questions are:

• Can patterns of landscape preferences be identified in terms of how attractive certain landscape images are perceived to be?

• Can relationships between landscape preferences and environmental value orientations be identified?

• Do socio-demographic conditions have any significant effect on the relationship between landscape preferences and environmental value orientations?