Landscape aesthetic modelling using Bayesian networks: Conceptual framework and participatory indicator weighting

Abstract Landscape aesthetics provides humans with health and social benefits contributing to overall well-being, thus representing a cultural ecosystem service. Landscape biophysical and social attributes create information that is interpreted as either beauty or blight by the mind of the beholder. The ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) modelling platform is quite suited to the landscape aesthetics paradigm, since it is characterized by both a strong focus on the spatial connectivity between ecosystems and beneficiaries and by the employment of Bayesian networks to quantify and communicate uncertainty. A conceptual framework based on landscape aesthetic abstraction levels was proposed to build these Bayesian networks, progressively linking tangible indicators to abstract dimensions and concepts. As input to ARIES, a simple and rapid participatory methodology was designed to weight indicators according to stakeholder preferences, from which values the probabilities were derived for use in canonical probabilistic models. The participatory indicator identification methodology generated both abstract and concrete terms, suggesting that the process should be supervised to obtain clear and tangible indicators. A sensitivity analysis revealed that individual visual blight indicators had more profound impacts on landscape aesthetic while the effect of beauty indicators was more subtle and balanced. Although the methodology may require a relatively large number of participants to derive probabilities, the procedure was not overly challenging for the participants. This methodology has the potential to be implemented widely, in various contexts and for different periods, accounting for alternative spatiotemporal variations and land cover contexts.

[1]  Carrie V. Kappel,et al.  A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems , 2008, Science.

[2]  B. Marcot,et al.  Bayesian belief networks: applications in ecology and natural resource management , 2006 .

[3]  Veerle Van Eetvelde,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes: Analysis and Management Options A Classification of Landscape Services to Support Local Landscape Planning , 2014 .

[4]  A. Grêt-Regamey,et al.  Defining a typology of peri-urban land-use conflicts - A case study from Switzerland , 2011 .

[5]  E. Ostrom A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems , 2009, Science.

[6]  Silja Renooij,et al.  Probabilities for a probabilistic network: a case study in oesophageal cancer , 2002, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[7]  Alexander J. Henshaw,et al.  Polyscape: A GIS mapping framework providing efficient and spatially explicit landscape-scale valuation of multiple ecosystem services , 2013 .

[8]  R. Ulrich Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment , 1983 .

[9]  Finn Verner Jensen,et al.  Public participation modelling using Bayesian networks in management of groundwater contamination , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[10]  D. Pearson,et al.  Unearthing the picturesque: The validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics , 2014 .

[11]  R. Ahas,et al.  Seasonal Indicators and Seasons of Estonian Landscapes , 2005 .

[12]  A. Stamps Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis , 2004 .

[13]  Arnim Wiek,et al.  Participatory methods of integrated assessment—a review , 2010 .

[14]  William L. Cats-Baril,et al.  Evaluating Aesthetics: The Major Issues and a Bibliography , 1986, Landscape Journal.

[15]  R. Costanza,et al.  Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  A. Kaźmierczak,et al.  Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review , 2007 .

[17]  G. Fry,et al.  Editorial: Landscape and Seasonality—Seasonal Landscapes , 2005 .

[18]  G. Daily,et al.  Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver , 2009 .

[19]  Roy Haines-Young,et al.  Belief Networks Exploring ecosystem service issues across diverse knowledge domains using Bayesian , 2011 .

[20]  Mirjam de Groot,et al.  Eyesores in sight: Quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty of Dutch landscapes , 2012 .

[21]  A. McMichael,et al.  Ecosystems and Human well-being , 2003 .

[22]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective , 1989 .

[23]  Robin Williams,et al.  Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme , 2004 .

[24]  R. Swetnam,et al.  Quantifying visual landscape quality in rural Wales: A GIS-enabled method for extensive monitoring of a valued cultural ecosystem service , 2017 .

[25]  Huan Liu,et al.  Discretization: An Enabling Technique , 2002, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[26]  F. Chapin,et al.  A safe operating space for humanity , 2009, Nature.

[27]  Darius J. Semmens,et al.  A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation , 2013 .

[28]  Ervin H. Zube,et al.  Landscape perception: Research, application and theory , 1982 .

[29]  Veerle Van Eetvelde,et al.  Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: visual image interpretation and landscape metrics , 2000 .

[30]  Adrienne Grêt-Regamey,et al.  Facing uncertainty in ecosystem services-based resource management. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[31]  H. Mooney,et al.  Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems , 1997, Renewable Energy.

[32]  A. Lothian Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? , 1999 .

[33]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Making Hard Decisions with DecisionTools , 2013 .

[34]  Sina K. Frank,et al.  A Review of Bayesian Networks as a Participatory Modeling Approach in Support of Sustainable Environmental Management , 2012 .

[35]  R. Haines-Young,et al.  Ecosystem Ecology: The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being , 2010 .

[36]  Guillermo A. Mendoza,et al.  Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms , 2006 .

[37]  A. Machado,et al.  An index of naturalness , 2004 .

[38]  R. Zajonc Feeling and thinking : Preferences need no inferences , 1980 .

[39]  Nadia Sitas,et al.  Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework , 2016 .

[40]  Jan Staes,et al.  EBI: An index for delivery of ecosystem service bundles , 2014 .

[41]  Ferdinando Villa,et al.  Service Path Attribution Networks (SPANs): Spatially Quantifying the Flow of Ecosystem Services from Landscapes to People , 2010, ICCSA.

[42]  R. D. Groot,et al.  Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making , 2010 .

[43]  Max Henrion,et al.  Practical issues in constructing a Bayes belief network , 1987, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[44]  Steven Broekx,et al.  A review of Bayesian belief networks in ecosystem service modelling , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[45]  G. Fry,et al.  The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[46]  Greg Brown The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis , 2013 .

[47]  Marek J Druzdzel,et al.  Local probability distributions in bayesian networks: knowledge elicitation and inference , 2010 .

[48]  Jan Staes,et al.  A GIS plug-in for Bayesian belief networks: Towards a transparent software framework to assess and visualise uncertainties in ecosystem service mapping , 2015, Environ. Model. Softw..

[49]  Gary W. Johnson,et al.  A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment , 2014, PloS one.

[50]  Pim Martens,et al.  Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges , 2012, Sustainability Science.

[51]  Franz Makeschin,et al.  Assessment of landscape aesthetics—Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty , 2013 .

[52]  P. Selman Centenary paper: Landscape planning – preservation, conservation and sustainable development , 2010 .

[53]  Bernhard Schmid,et al.  Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland , 2015 .

[54]  G. Fry,et al.  Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure , 2006 .

[55]  Gary W. Johnson,et al.  Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services , 2013 .

[56]  Marek J. Druzdzel,et al.  SMILE: Structural Modeling, Inference, and Learning Engine and GeNIE: A Development Environment for Graphical Decision-Theoretic Models , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[57]  M. Bradley,et al.  Looking at pictures: affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. , 1993, Psychophysiology.

[58]  M. Reed Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[59]  Yongli Cai,et al.  Effects of Visual Indicators on Landscape Preferences , 2013 .

[60]  Peter M. Howley,et al.  Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes , 2011 .

[61]  B. Voigt,et al.  From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments , 2014 .

[62]  J. Gareth Polhill,et al.  Agent-based land-use models: a review of applications , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[63]  Peter H. Verburg,et al.  Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: a meta-analysis of case studies , 2014 .

[64]  Gary Fry,et al.  Health effects of viewing landscapes - Landscape types in environmental psychology , 2007 .

[65]  A. McMichael,et al.  Assessing ecosystem health. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[66]  Åsa Ode,et al.  Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character , 2006 .

[67]  Karen B. Schloss,et al.  Visual aesthetics and human preference. , 2013, Annual review of psychology.

[68]  J. W. Termorshuizen,et al.  Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[69]  Anne Sgard Le partage du paysage , 2011 .

[70]  G. Daily,et al.  The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health , 2012, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[71]  A. Stamps Demographic Effects in Environmental Aesthetics: A Meta-Analysis , 1999 .

[72]  Jeremy E. Oakley,et al.  Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts' Probabilities , 2006 .

[73]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison , 2003 .

[74]  Muhamad Solehin Fitry Rosley,et al.  Perceiving the Aesthetic Value of the Rural Landscape Through Valid Indicators , 2013 .

[75]  Felix Kienast,et al.  Participatory landscape development: overcoming social barriers to public involvement , 2003 .

[76]  R. Simons,et al.  Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments , 1991 .

[77]  Gary Fry,et al.  Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory , 2008 .

[78]  Anna Jorgensen Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aesthetics research , 2011 .

[79]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[80]  J. Cohen,et al.  Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: A critical review , 2014 .