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

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.

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

[2]  B. Kaltenborn,et al.  Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences , 2002 .

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

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

[5]  P. Rieder,et al.  Site-specific and regionally optimal direct payments for mountain agriculture , 2005 .

[6]  A. Gibon,et al.  Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response , 2000 .

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

[8]  Erich Tasser,et al.  Impact of land use changes on mountain vegetation , 2002 .

[9]  F. Kienast,et al.  Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty – a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment , 1999, Landscape Ecology.

[10]  A. Rae,et al.  Nostalgia Versus Pragmatism? How Attitudes and Interests Shape the Term Sustainable Agriculture in Switzerland and New Zealand , 2009 .

[11]  B. Pedroli,et al.  From Hiking Through Farmland to Farming in a Leisure Landscape: Changing Social Perceptions of the European Landscape , 2006, Landscape Ecology.

[12]  S. Egoz,et al.  Tastes in tension: form, function, and meaning in New Zealand’s farmed landscapes , 2001 .

[13]  A. Bosshard,et al.  Swiss people's attitudes towards field margins for biodiversity conservation. , 2009 .

[14]  E. Szerencsits,et al.  Incentives for low-input land-use types and their influence on the attractiveness of landscapes. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[15]  S. Butler,et al.  Farmland Biodiversity and the Footprint of Agriculture , 2007, Science.

[16]  M. Hunziker,et al.  How do biodiversity and conservation values relate to landscape preferences? A case study from the Swiss Alps , 2009, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[17]  Edward S. Neumann,et al.  Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research , 1987 .

[18]  T. Spiegelberger,et al.  Long-term effects of short-term perturbation in a subalpine grassland. , 2006, Ecology.

[19]  E. Strumse Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway , 1994 .

[20]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  How effective are European agri‐environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? , 2003 .

[21]  James F. Palmer,et al.  Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments , 2001 .

[22]  Andreas Lüscher,et al.  Mountain grassland biodiversity: Impact of site conditions versus management type , 2008 .

[23]  Werner Nohl,et al.  Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception–preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics , 2001 .

[24]  D. Matthies,et al.  The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation , 2010 .

[25]  P. Lindemann-Matthies,et al.  Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland. , 2007 .

[26]  F. Herzog,et al.  The Swiss agri-environmental programme and its effects on selected biodiversity indicators , 2003 .

[27]  L. Cohen,et al.  Research Methods in Education , 1980 .

[28]  Bernard Amiaud,et al.  Biodiversity: Function and Assessment in Agricultural Areas: A Review , 2005 .

[29]  Alan D. Woolf,et al.  Site and landscape conditions at white-tailed deer/vehicle collision locations in Illinois , 1999 .

[30]  K. Ewald The neglect of aesthetics in landscape planning in Switzerland , 2001 .

[31]  Klaus Eder,et al.  The social construction of nature , 1996 .

[32]  P. Messerli Research on Alpine Landscape Development: From Research to Policy , 2008 .

[33]  Sonja Wipf,et al.  Effect of low-intensity grazing on the species-rich vegetation of traditionally mown subalpine meadows , 2002 .

[34]  T. Daniel Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century , 2001 .

[35]  K. Olwig,et al.  The Aesthetics of Landscape , 1991 .

[36]  J. Nassauer Framing the landscape in photographic simulation , 1983 .

[37]  T. R. Herzog,et al.  A cognitive analysis of preference for field‐and‐forest environments , 1984 .

[38]  D. Canter,et al.  PICTURE OR PLACE? A MULTIPLE SORTING STUDY OF LANDSCAPE☆ , 1997 .

[39]  Wendy Fjellstad,et al.  Integrating landscape-based values—Norwegian monitoring of agricultural landscapes , 2001 .

[40]  Jürgen Breuste,et al.  Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation within urban development , 2004 .

[41]  C. Osgood,et al.  The Measurement of Meaning , 1958 .

[42]  Geoff A. Wilson,et al.  Agri-environmental policy in the European Union. , 2000 .

[43]  Felix Kienast,et al.  Evaluation of Landscape Change by Different Social Groups , 2008 .

[44]  J. F. Coeterier,et al.  GROUP DIFFERENCES IN THE AESTHETIC EVALUATION OF NATURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: A MULTILEVEL APPROACH , 1998 .

[45]  E. Strumse DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN THE VISUAL PREFERENCES FOR AGRARIAN LANDSCAPES IN WESTERN NORWAY , 1996 .

[46]  D. Bardsley,et al.  In Situ Agrobiodiversity Conservation in the Swiss Inner Alpine Zone , 2004 .

[47]  T. Daniel,et al.  REPRESENTATIONAL VALIDITY OF LANDSCAPE VISUALIZATIONS: THE EFFECTS OF GRAPHICAL REALISM ON PERCEIVED SCENIC BEAUTY OF FOREST VISTAS , 2001 .

[48]  J. Baumgärtner,et al.  The design and implementation of sustainable plant diversity conservation program for alpine meadows and pastures , 2001 .

[49]  Jyrki Aakkula,et al.  Framing the biodiversity of agricultural landscape: The essence of local conceptions and constructions , 2007 .

[50]  Eckart Lange,et al.  The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes , 2001 .

[51]  R. Kaplan,et al.  With people in mind , 1998 .

[52]  Sigrid Hehl-Lange,et al.  Structural elements of the visual landscape and their ecological functions , 2001 .

[53]  W. Groot,et al.  The new biophilia: an exploration of visions of nature in Western countries , 2001, Environmental Conservation.