Progress in indicators to assess agricultural landscape valuation: how and what is measured at different levels of governance

Abstract Landscape is defined by the European Landscape Convention as “ an area perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors ”. Many efforts have been devoted in addressing the core concepts on which this definition roots: perception and interaction of men and nature, but when coming to large (continental) scale assessments, the latter prevail on the former. This paper aims at presenting a framework for a measurable landscape awareness indicator as a key link to the public demand for a specific type of landscape: the agricultural landscape. This is a necessary effort to complement more physically based assessments, which include as well the impact of human activities on landscapes. The analysis is carried out at different levels of governance: EU and regional, using an example from the Alentejo region in Portugal and EU wide databases, and addresses conceptual and practical questions: what type of societal landscape awareness can be monitored and by whom (e.g., individuals, specific social groups, society as a whole); what are the landscape dimensions that should be assessed; what are the limitations imposed by data-related constraints. By applying the methodology to build composite indicators to map landscape societal awareness, the paper shows the regional and local meaning of indicator approaches developed at European level, presents developments for downscaling to regional level, while introducing the social component to support sound policy development for European rural landscapes.

[1]  T. Pinto-Correia,et al.  The fuzziness of Montado landscapes: progress in assessing user preferences through photo-based surveys , 2011, Agroforestry Systems.

[2]  J. F. Coeterier,et al.  Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape , 1996 .

[3]  M. Hunziker,et al.  Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands , 2011 .

[4]  P. Selman Planning at the Landscape Scale , 2006 .

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

[6]  G. Griffiths,et al.  The EU societal awareness of landscape indicator: a review of its meaning, utility and performance across different scales , 2016 .

[7]  T. Pinto-Correia,et al.  Landscape preferences in the cork oak Montado region of Alentejo, southern Portugal: Searching for valuable landscape characteristics for different user groups , 2008 .

[8]  T. Pinto-Correia,et al.  The changing role of farming in a peripheric South European area – the challenge of the landscape amenities demand , 2010 .

[9]  G. Huylenbroeck,et al.  Landscape Amenities: Economic Assessment of Agricultural Landscapes , 2005 .

[10]  I. Ramos ‘Landscape Quality Objectives’ for Remote Rural Landscapes in Portugal: Addressing Experts’ and Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Future Developments , 2011 .

[11]  Marc Antrop,et al.  Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. , 2000 .

[12]  J. Holmes,et al.  Impulses towards a Multifunctional Transition in Rural Australia: Gaps in the Research Agenda. , 2006 .

[13]  Wendy Fjellstad,et al.  Landscape protection as a tool for managing agricultural landscapes in Norway , 2009 .

[14]  Melania D'angelosante European Landscape Convention , 2013 .

[15]  Å. Ode,et al.  Public evaluation of landscape content and change: several examples from Europe. , 2009 .

[16]  G. Fry,et al.  The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators , 2009 .

[17]  Carys Swanwick,et al.  Society's attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. , 2009 .

[18]  J. Aronson,et al.  The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity , 2010 .

[19]  F. Barroso,et al.  Is land cover an important asset for addressing the subjective landscape dimensions , 2013 .

[20]  A. Saltelli,et al.  Composite Indicators between Analysis and Advocacy , 2007 .

[21]  M. Tveit Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[22]  A. Migliozzi,et al.  Placing land cover pattern preferences on the map: Bridging methodological approaches of landscape preference surveys and spatial pattern analysis , 2013 .

[23]  T. Pinto-Correia,et al.  Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: Photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context , 2012 .

[24]  T. Pinto-Correia,et al.  Visual complexity and the montado do matter: landscape pattern preferences of user groups in Alentejo, Portugal , 2013, Annals of Forest Science.

[25]  Iris Heller,et al.  Assessing Landscape Functions with Broad-Scale Environmental Data: Insights Gained from a Prototype Development for Europe , 2009, Environmental management.

[26]  T. Pinto-Correia,et al.  How do policy options modify landscape amenities? An assessment approach based on public expressed preferences , 2013 .

[27]  José I. Barredo,et al.  Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services - An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 , 2013 .