Visual Perception of Habitats Adopted for Post-Mining Landscape Rehabilitation

The study presented here focuses on visual preferences expressed by respondents for five relatively natural habitat types used in land reclamation projects in the North-West Bohemian brown coal basins (Czech Republic). Respondents evaluated the perceived beauty of the habitat types using a photograph questionnaire, on the basis of the positively skewed 6-point Likert scale. The order of the habitat types, from most beautiful to least beautiful, was: managed coniferous forest, wild deciduous forest, managed deciduous forest, managed mixed forest, and managed grassland. Higher visual preferences were indicated for older forest habitats (30–40 years old) than for younger habitats (10–20 years old). In addition, respondents preferred wild deciduous forest to managed deciduous forest. Managed grasslands and non-native managed coniferous forests were preferred by older people with a lower level of education and low income living in the post-mining area. On the other hand, native, wild deciduous forest was awarded the highest perceived beauty score by younger, more educated respondents with higher income, living outside the post-mining landscapes. The study confirms differences in the perception of various forms of land reclamation by residents vs. non-residents, and its findings also confirm the need for sociological research in post-mining landscapes within the process of designing rehabilitated landscapes. From the visual standpoint, the results of our study also support the current trend toward using natural succession in the reclamation of post-mining landscapes.

[1]  Markéta Hendrychová,et al.  Invertebrate communities in man-made and spontaneously developed forests on spoil heaps after coal mining , 2009 .

[2]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management , 2003 .

[3]  E. Zube,et al.  Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes , 1981 .

[4]  S. Koole,et al.  New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes , 2006 .

[5]  D. Martinez,et al.  Suburban Areas in Developing Countries and Their Relationship to Groundwater Pollution: A Case Study of Mar del Plata, Argentina , 1998, Environmental management.

[6]  A. Misgav,et al.  Integration of Visual Quality Considerations in Development of Israeli Vegetation Management Policy , 2001, Environmental management.

[7]  Petr Pyšek,et al.  Using spontaneous succession for restoration of human-disturbed habitats: Experience from Central Europe , 2001 .

[8]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Forest management and public perceptions — visual versus verbal information , 2001 .

[9]  J. Frouz,et al.  Development of soil microbial properties in topsoil layer during spontaneous succession in heaps after brown coal mining in relation to humus microstructure development , 2005 .

[10]  Valentina Dentoni,et al.  Visibility of surface mining and impact perception , 2005 .

[11]  G. J. Buhyoff,et al.  Extension of visual quality models for urban forests , 1986 .

[12]  J. Falk,et al.  Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments , 1982 .

[13]  Stephen R.J. Sheppard,et al.  Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics , 2000 .

[14]  R. McLaren,et al.  Landscape restoration after oil sands mining: conceptual design and hydrological modelling for fen reconstruction , 2010 .

[15]  Joan Iverson Nassauer,et al.  Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames , 1995, Landscape Journal.

[16]  G. Wiegleb,et al.  Development options of natural habitats in a post‐mining landscape , 2000 .

[17]  Stephen R.J. Sheppard,et al.  Beyond visual resource management: emerging theories of an ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship. , 2001 .

[18]  R. Ulrich Human responses to vegetation and landscapes , 1986 .

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

[20]  P. Sklenicka,et al.  Stand continuity—a useful parameter for ecological networks in post-mining landscapes , 2003 .

[21]  Dominic Habron,et al.  Visual perception of wild land in Scotland , 1998 .

[22]  A. Carlson,et al.  Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: seeing and knowing. , 2001 .

[23]  Randy J. Virden,et al.  A comparison study of wilderness users and nonusers: implications for managers and policymakers. , 1990 .

[24]  E. Lyons Demographic Correlates of Landscape Preference , 1983 .

[25]  E. Pecharová,et al.  Landscape memory as a solution of the ecological stability of the territory after mining , 2008 .

[26]  R. J. Lamb,et al.  Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure , 1990 .

[27]  T. Daniel Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. , 2001 .

[28]  L. Sauvé Currents in Environmental Education: Mapping a Complex and Evolving Pedagogical Field. , 2005 .

[29]  Carl Steinitz,et al.  Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the loop road in Acadia National Park, U.S.A. , 1990 .

[30]  A. Purcell,et al.  Preference or preferences for landscape , 1994 .

[31]  Gregory J. Buhyoff,et al.  The Scenic Beauty Temporal Distribution Method: An Attempt to Make Scenic Beauty Assessments Compatible with Forest Planning Efforts , 1986, Forest Science.

[32]  M. Brunson,et al.  Sources of variation in attitudes and beliefs about federal rangeland management , 1996 .

[33]  Stephen Kaplan,et al.  Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. , 1979 .

[34]  F. S. Jensen,et al.  Forest recreation in Denmark from the 1970s to the 1990s [including 4 manuscripts] , 1999 .

[35]  Jeffrey O. Durrant,et al.  Attitudes Toward Wilderness Study Areas: A Survey of Six Southeastern Utah Counties , 2004, Environmental management.

[36]  G. Fry,et al.  Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[37]  Robert D. Brown,et al.  Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites , 2002 .

[38]  Petr Sklenicka,et al.  Landscape heterogeneity—a quantitative criterion for landscape reconstruction , 2002 .

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

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

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

[42]  Klaus Atzwanger,et al.  Human Habitat Preferences: A Generative Territory for Evolutionary Aesthetics Research , 2003 .

[43]  Sharolyn Anderson,et al.  Mapping perceived wilderness to support protected areas management in the San Juan National Forest, Colorado , 2008 .

[44]  Ke-Tsung Han Responses to Six Major Terrestrial Biomes in Terms of Scenic Beauty, Preference, and Restorativeness , 2007 .

[45]  A. Berger Reclaiming the American West , 2002 .