Elsevier

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volume 98, Issue 2, 30 November 2010, Pages 99-109
Landscape and Urban Planning

Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.015Get rights and content

Abstract

To counter the loss of agro-biodiversity, Swiss farmers can qualify for area-related direct payments by managing part of their utilized land (at least 7%) as so-called ecological compensation areas (ECAs). However, little is know how changing farming practices influence the scenic beauty of a landscape in view of the public. Such knowledge is especially valuable in regions that are significant tourist destinations and places of recreation. This paper investigates, with the help of 16 simulated colour images of a typical landscape in the Eastern Central Alps, the impact of different agricultural land-use (grassland, arable land), grassland management intensity (high, low, mixed), and abundance of ECAs on perceived scenic beauty by 202 non-alpine Swiss residents. Respondents rated each landscape by attractiveness, and characterized their most liked and disliked landscape. Landscapes covered with low-intensively managed, species-rich grassland and further ECAs such as single locally adapted tree species and hedges were rated highest, most often selected as best liked, and characterized as diverse, species-rich and worthy of preservation. Mere production landscapes with a mixture of high-intensity, species-poor grassland and arable land, and few ECAs were rated lowest, most often selected as disliked, and characterized as boring, although productive. The presence of arable land, once a typical element in Swiss alpine landscapes, generally reduced scenic beauty, although older people and environmental organisation members responded more positive to its presence. The results indicate that agro-environment schemes can positively influence the aesthetic quality of a region which, in consequence, might have a positive impact on tourism.

Introduction

Mountain ecosystems are hotspots of biological diversity (Körner and Spehn, 2002). However, human alterations of the environment have resulted in the loss of biodiversity on a global scale, and mountain ecosystems now rank among the most endangered ecosystems worldwide (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Important drivers for the loss of biodiversity, both in mountain ecosystems and elsewhere, are associated with changes in land-use (Butler et al., 2007, Flury et al., 2005). In alpine regions of Switzerland, both intensification of agriculture on productive and abandonment on less productive land or in remote sites are resulting in a severe loss of biodiversity (Baumgärtner and Hartmann, 2000, Tasser and Tappeiner, 2002). Especially nutrient-poor meadows and pastures, which are among the most species-rich vegetation types in central Europe, are now strongly threatened by either fertilization and intensification of mowing or grazing, or by abandonment (Baumgärtner and Hartmann, 2000, Fischer and Wipf, 2002, Tasser and Tappeiner, 2002).

To counter the loss of biodiversity in agricultural land, agro-environment schemes are important political instruments in European countries (European Environment Agency, 2004, Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003, Schmid and Lehmann, 2000). However, such schemes vary markedly between European countries. In Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, for instance, they focus mainly on wildlife and habitat conservation, whereas in Denmark and Germany they focus on a reduction of agrochemical emissions and in France on the prevention of land abandonment in agriculturally marginal areas (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003).

Unique to Switzerland is that since 1998, farmers throughout the country can qualify for area-related direct payments if they meet a number of environmental standards (Flury et al., 2005, Schmid and Lehmann, 2000). One of these standards demands that each farmer has to manage at least 7% of the utilized agricultural land as so-called ecological compensation areas (ECAs). To achieve the environmental goals, in ECAs the use of fertilizers and pesticides is restricted (Günter et al., 2002). In the Swiss mountains, the most common type of ECAs are meadows which are subject to a late first cut (at approximately 1400 m asl July 15th) and no or limited fertilization. They can make up as much as 60% of the agricultural area of certain municipalities, and cover 55,000 ha in the Swiss Alps (Kampmann et al., 2008).

As part of a multifunctional agriculture, aesthetics has been widely recognized as a non-commodity resource or, more recently, as an ecosystem service in addition to more traditionally commodity-oriented resources like food and fibre (Gobster et al., 2007, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). It has been suggested that landscapes that are perceived as aesthetically pleasing are more likely to be appreciated and protected than landscapes that are perceived as undistinguished or ugly, regardless of their ecological importance (Daniel, 2001, Gobster et al., 2007). Consequently, aesthetic experiences may lead people to landscape changes in ways that may or may not be consistent with its ecological function. In view of the increasing need to protect and maintain ecological health, biological diversity and ecosystem services in all types of landscapes, the necessity to incorporate ideas about ecological processes in landscape aesthetics has been pointed out (Daniel, 2001, Gobster et al., 2007). Such an “ecological aesthetics” (Gobster et al., 2007, p. 962) is driven by the idea that decision-making strategies are needed that bring ecological goals and human values into better alignment.

The Swiss agro-environment scheme has been evaluated in several studies, most of them showing positive results for plants and various groups of insects (Herzog et al., 2005, Jeanneret et al., 2003, Kampmann et al., 2008). However, it is hardly known whether land-use changes that lead to ecological benefits also lead to aesthetic benefits for the public. A recent study indicates that low-input land-use types may contribute to the attractiveness of a region (Schüpbach et al., 2008). However, this study was carried out in the Swiss lowlands which differ considerably in land-use from the Swiss Alps. The present study investigated the aesthetic responses of non-alpine Swiss residents to photo-realistic visualizations of different land-use scenarios in one typical region in the Eastern Central Swiss Alps. Our study is one of the first that tests the hypothesis that species-richness in farmland is of aesthetic value to humans. Moreover, it tests in different scenarios the influence of different land-use types (arable land, grassland) in different proportions which is also novel in the field of landscape assessment studies.

The visualized landscapes varied in grassland–crop-ratio, proportion of grassland that is species-rich in the foreground and in the abundance of further ECAs in the middle ground. The ECAs were typical for the region and consisted of species-rich meadows and pastures, single locally adapted trees, hedges, stone heaps and walls, and dry stonewalls (see Günter et al., 2002). The background was standardized: an identical mountain range (taken from the original photograph) and identical sky. Grasslands and crop fields were shown in their most attractive stages (flowering grasslands, ripe crops).

The results contribute to the current discussion of how biodiversity in cultural landscapes can be enhanced while simultaneously enhancing its aesthetic quality for humans (Gobster et al., 2007). They will be useful for regional policy decisions and landscape development, as the integration of people's preferences is a vital component of today's landscape planning (Breuste, 2004, Kaplan et al., 1998). Understanding the effect of land-use changes on scenic beauty in sub-alpine regions of Switzerland is especially important as these regions are significant tourist destinations and places of recreation. As compensation payments almost directly lead to land-use change, they should become a subject to be negotiated between alpine and non-alpine citizens; simulations of expected changes may help in the negotiation process (Messerli, 2008).

Several theories for explaining landscape perception and preferences exist. “Evolutionary theories” explain visual landscape preferences by biological and evolutionary principles (e.g. Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989), claiming that humans respond positively to features that enhance survival and well-being. “Humanistic” or “cultural” preference theories argue that attitudes, beliefs and ideas of each individual observer are in a constant flux and are shaped by cultural and personal experiences, with beauty being in the eye of the beholder (e.g. Lothian, 1999). In an attempt to overcome the conflict between biological and cultural explanations of human responses to nature, Bourassa (1991) argued that biological, cultural and personal factors are important determinants of human–nature interactions.

Biological factors could be, for instance, the species-richness of a landscape element and its colour diversity, the heterogeneity of a landscape and its spatial structure, whereas cultural factors could be age, gender, formal knowledge and expertise of a person as well as familiarity and experience (Gobster et al., 2007, Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, Strumse, 1996). Landscape preferences are also influenced by feelings and imaginations that landscape elements evoke in a viewer such as peacefulness and freedom, or by a person's attachment to a place (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, Nohl, 2001). Moreover, they are influenced by people's environmental value orientations (Kaltenborn and Bjerke, 2002, Soliva and Hunziker, 2009). In addition, landscape preferences are guided by mental images. Humans gather information about other places through personal travel, but they also form mental images of places with the information they get through reading, radio, television, talking to other people or advertisements (Ewald, 2001, Gould and White, 1986). It can be assumed that the better the match between the mental image and reality is, the more aesthetic pleasure will be derived from the landscape perception. Based on the “tripartite theory” of biological, cultural and personal modes of aesthetic experiences (Strumse, 1996, p. 18), we put forward the following hypotheses:

  • (1)

    A reduction of species-rich grasslands in mountain regions of Switzerland due to intensification of management may lead to a reduction in their attractiveness to Swiss non-alpine residents. Recent studies indicate that the public likes species-rich elements in agricultural land (Junge et al., 2009, Strumse, 1994). Moreover, in a series of experiments and field studies using natural meadows on people's perception and appreciation of species diversity, aesthetic appreciation always increased with true species-richness (Lindemann-Matthies et al., 2010).

  • (2)

    Landscapes characterized by grassland alone will be less liked than landscapes characterized by a mixture of grassland and arable land. Processes of agricultural intensification which simplify landscape structure and result in less variation and complexity were found to reduce the quality of the landscape experience (Clergue et al., 2005, Dramstad et al., 2001).

  • (3)

    An increase in the abundance of ECAs in Swiss mountainous regions may increase their aesthetic appeal to non-alpine Swiss residents. ECAs add variation and complexity to a landscape, two factors which have been found to enhance the quality of the landscape experience (Clergue et al., 2005, Dramstad et al., 2001). They also enhance the chance of experiencing naturalness in a landscape, a powerful predictor for scenic beauty (Nohl, 2001).

  • (4)

    Cultural factors will influence the aesthetic responses to our visualizations. A landscape element will be perceived as typical, if it has been experienced as part of the familiar landscape for some time (Nohl, 2001). Older people may have experienced the production of crops in the Swiss Alps during childhood. Consequently, they may like landscapes with a mixture of grassland and arable land better than landscapes characterized by grassland alone. Higher educated people and members of environmental organisations might be more in favour of ECAs, as they are likely to be more informed about the ecological benefits of biodiversity than other people. This might also be the case for women as they have shown a greater affinity for plant species-richness than men (Lindemann-Matthies and Bose, 2007, Strumse, 1996).

The key objectives approached in this paper were:

  • (1)

    to investigate whether landscapes are liked better, the more of the grassland is species-rich,

  • (2)

    to investigate whether landscapes characterized by a mixture of grassland and arable land are liked better than landscapes characterized by grassland alone,

  • (3)

    to investigate whether an increase in arable land increases the aesthetic appeal of a landscape,

  • (4)

    to investigate whether an increase in the abundance of ECAs increases the aesthetic appeal of a landscape, especially in landscapes that are otherwise dominated by species-poor grassland,

  • (5)

    to investigate whether people's age, sex, education, and environmental interest influence the aesthetic appeal of the different land-use scenarios, and their general opinion on how landscapes in the Swiss Alps should look like.

Section snippets

Methods

The present study is based on a survey with 202 Swiss residents. Passers-by in the cities of Zurich and St. Gallen were addressed in parks and other well-visited areas and asked to fill-in a standardized written questionnaire. In the questionnaire, they had to valuate photo-realistic visualizations of potential future landscapes by attractiveness and to answer a number of questions.

Overall valuation of the images

A landscape with 100% species-rich grassland in the foreground and 23% ECAs in the middle ground received the highest mean preference rating (image 6; see Fig. 1a). It was also selected most often (by 53% of the study participants) as the most liked landscape. A landscape with 100% species-rich grassland in the foreground and <5% ECAs in the middle ground (image 5) was selected second most often (by 13% of the participants). The other landscapes were only rarely selected: images 9 and 11 by

The influence of species-richness

Study participants liked landscapes better, the more species-rich grassland they contained. Moreover, they also characterized the highest rated and best-liked landscape (100% species-rich grassland in the foreground, 23% ECAs in the middle ground) as worth preserving, natural, diverse and species-rich. Our results corroborate findings from other studies which show a growing nature-friendliness of the public in western countries in general (Dramstad et al., 2006, Van den Born et al., 2001), and

Conclusions

In Europe, the diversity of grasslands has dramatically decreased in lowland areas, whereas many traditionally managed mountain grasslands are still species-rich (MacDonald et al., 2000). However, increasing intensification of well accessible sites and abandonment of less accessible sites is threatening these habitats as well (Tasser and Tappeiner, 2002). As alpine landscapes in Europe are important tourist destinations and European landscapes in general are increasingly appreciated as leisure

Acknowledgements

The authors like to thank all study participants for their time and D. Matthies and F. Herzog for providing valuable comments on the original manuscript.

References (60)

  • P. Jeanneret et al.

    The Swiss agri-environmental programme and its effects on selected biodiversity indicators

    J. Nat. Conserv.

    (2003)
  • X. Junge et al.

    Swiss people's attitudes towards field margins for biodiversity conservation

    J. Nat. Conserv.

    (2009)
  • B.P. Kaltenborn et al.

    Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2002)
  • D. Kampmann et al.

    Mountain grassland biodiversity: impact of site conditions versus management type

    J. Nat. Conserv.

    (2008)
  • E. Lange

    The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2001)
  • P. Lindemann-Matthies et al.

    Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2007)
  • P. Lindemann-Matthies et al.

    Experimental evidence for human preference of biodiversity in grassland ecosystems

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • D. MacDonald et al.

    Agriculture abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (2000)
  • W. Nohl

    Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception-preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2001)
  • J.F. Palmer et al.

    Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2001)
  • B. Schüpbach et al.

    Incentives for low-input land-use types and their influence on the attractiveness of landscapes

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (2008)
  • M.J. Scott et al.

    Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape

    J. Environ. Psychol.

    (1997)
  • K. Soini et al.

    Framing the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes: the essence of local conceptions and constructions

    Land Use Policy

    (2007)
  • E. Strumse

    Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway

    J. Environ. Psychol.

    (1994)
  • E. Strumse

    Demographic differences in the visual preference for agrarian landscapes in western Norway

    J. Environ. Psychol.

    (1996)
  • R.B. Trent et al.

    Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (1987)
  • A.E. Van den Berg et al.

    Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach

    J. Environ. Psychol.

    (1998)
  • D. Bardsley et al.

    In situ agrobiodiversity conservation in the Swiss inner Alpine zone

    Geojournal

    (2004)
  • J. Baumgärtner et al.

    The design and implementation of sustainable plant diversity conservation program for alpine meadows and pastures

    J. Agric. Environ. Ethics

    (2000)
  • S.C. Bourassa

    The Aesthetics of Landscape

    (1991)
  • Cited by (158)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text