[en] Assessing the ways in which rural agrarian areas provide Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) is provingdifficult to achieve. This research has developed an innovative methodological approach named as MultiScale Indicator Framework (MSIF) for capturing the CES embedded into the rural agrarian areas. Thisframework reconciles a literature review with a transdisciplinary participatory workshop. Both of thesesources reveal that societal preferences diverge upon judgemental criteria which in turn relate to differentvisual concepts that can be drawn from analyzing attributes, elements, features and characteristics of ruralareas. We contend that it is now possible to list a group of possible multi scale indicators for stewardship,diversity and aesthetics. These results might also be of use for improving any existing European indicatorsframeworks by also including CES. This research carries major implications for policy at different levels ofgovernance, as it makes possible to target and monitor policy instruments to the physical rural settingsso that cultural dimensions are adequately considered. There is still work to be developed on regionalspecific values and thresholds for each criteria and its indicator set. In practical terms, by developing theconceptual design within a common framework as described in this paper, a considerable step forwardtoward the inclusion of the cultural dimension in European wide assessments can be made.
Disciplines :
Human geography & demography
Author, co-author :
Carvalho-Ribeiro, Sónia
Pinto Correia, Teresa
Paracchini, Maria Luisa
Schüpbach, Béatrice
Sang, Asa Ode
Vanderheyden, Vincent ; Université de Liège > Département de géographie > Service de géographie rurale (LAPLEC)
Southern, Adrian
Jones, Philip
Contreras, Beatriz
O' Riordan
Language :
English
Title :
Assessing the ability of rural agrarian areas to provide culturalecosystem services (CES): A multi scale social indicator framework(MSIF)
Publication date :
2016
Journal title :
Land Use Policy
ISSN :
0264-8377
eISSN :
1873-5754
Publisher :
Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science, Oxford, United Kingdom
Ahn S.-H., Choi Y., Kim Y.-M. Static numbers to dynamic statistics: designing a policy-friendly social policy indicator framework. Soc. Indic. Res. 2012, 108(3):387-400.
Antrop M. The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The example of flanders region. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1997, 38(1-2):105-117.
Antrop M. Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 77:17-28.
Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape 1975, Wiley, London & New York.
Appleton J. Living in the landscape: toward an aesthetics of environment. Br. J. Aesthet. 1998, 38(1):104-105.
Arler F. Aspects of landscape or nature quality. Landsc. Ecol. 2000, 15(3):291-302.
Barrett T.L., Farina A., Barrett G.W. Aesthetic landscapes: an emergent component in sustaining societies. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 24(8):1029-1035.
Burkhard B., Kroll F., Müller F., Windhorst W. Landscapes capacities to provide ecosystem services - a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc. Online 2009, 15:1-22.
Carlson A.A. On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landsc. Plann. 1977, 4:131-172.
Carvalho-Ribeiro S.M., Madeira L., Pinto Correia T. Developing comprehensive indicators for monitoring rural policy impacts on landscape in Alentejo Southern Portugal. Danish J. Geog. 2013, 113(2):87-96.
Carvalho-Ribeiro S.M., Migliozzi A., Incerti G., Pinto Correia T. Placing land cover pattern preferences on the map: bridging methodological approaches of landscape preference surveys and spatial pattern analysis. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2013, 114:53-68.
Carvalho-Ribeiro S.M., Ramos I.L., Madeira L., Barroso F., Menezes H., Pinto Correia T. Is land cover an important asset for addressing the subjective landscape dimensions?. Land Use Policy 2013, 35:50-60.
Cash D.W., Adger W.N., Berkes F., Garden P., Lebel L., Olsson P., Pritchard L., Young O. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11(2). http://ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss12/art18/.
Cassatela C., Peano A. Landscape Indicators: Assessing and Monitoring Landscape Quality 2011, Springer, ISBN: 978-94-007-0365-0 (Print) 978-94-007-0366-7 (Online). Attilia (Ed.).
Coeterier J.F. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1996, 34(1):27-44.
Cooper T., Hart K., Baldock D. Provision of Public Goods through Agriculture in the European Union Report Prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Contract No 30-CE-0233091/00-28 2009, Institute for European Environmental Policy IEEP, London.
Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2001, 54(1-4):267-281.
Dick J., Maes J., Smith R.I., Paracchini M.L., Zulian G. Cross-scale analysis of ecosystem services identified and assessed at local and European level. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 38(0):20-30.
Dramstad W.E., Fry G., Fjellstad W.J., Skar B., Helliksen W., Sollund M.L., Tveit M.S., Geelmuyden A.K., Framstad E. Integrating landscape-based values-norwegian monitoring of agricultural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2001, 57(3-4):257-268.
Dramstad W.E., Tveit M.S., Fjellstad W.J., Fry G.L.A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2006, 78(4):465-474.
Duncan J., Ley D. Place/Culture/Representation 1993, Routledge, London, pp. 39-56.
ELC The European Landscape Convention 2000, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
Flick An Introduction to Qualitative Research 2002, Sage Publications, 55 City Road, London.
Fry G., Tveit M.S., Ode A., Velarde M.D. The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9(5):933-947.
Fyhri A., Jacobsen J.K.S., Tømmervik H. Tourists landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2009, 91(4):202-211.
García-Llorente M., Martín-López B., Iniesta-Arandia I., López-Santiago C.A., Aguilera P.A., Montes C. The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 19-20(0):136-146.
Gobster P.H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.C., Fry G. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22:959-972.
Hamilton A. Aesthetics and the environment: the appreciation of nature, art and architecture. Br. J. Aesthet. 2001, 41(4):444-446.
Kaplan R., Kaplan S. Anthropogenic/anthropogenerous: creating environments that help people create better environments. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2011, 100(4):350-352.
Lefebvre M., Espinosa M., Paloma Gomez S., Paracchini M.L., Piorrc A., Zasadac I. Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale public good and the role of the common agricultural policy. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2014.
Mander U., Muller F., Wrbka T. Functional and structural landscape indicators: upscaling and downscaling problems. Ecol. Indic. 2005, 5(4):267-272.
McMichael A.J., Butler C.D., Folke C. New visions for adressing sustainability. Science 2003, 302(December(12)):1919-1920.
MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human well-being: Synthesis 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf.
Nassauer J.I. Care and stewardship: from home to planet. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2011, 100(4):321-323.
Ode A., Fry G., Tveit M.S., Messager P., Miller D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90(1):375-383.
Ode A., Hagerhall C.M., Sang N. Analysing visual landscape complexity: theory and application. Landsc. Res. 2010, 35(1):111-131.
Ode A., Miller D. Analysing the relationships between indicators of landscape complexity and preference. Environ. Plann. B 2011, 38:24-40.
Ode A., Tveit M.S., Fry G. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landsc. Res. 2008, 33(1):89-117.
Ode Sang A., Tveit M.S. Perceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Land Use Policy 2013, 31(0):557-564.
OECD The New Rural Paradigm. Policies and Governance 2006, OECD, Paris.
Paracchini M.L., Capitani C., Schmidt A.M., Andersen E., Wascher D.M., Jones P.J., Simoncini R., Carvalho Ribeiro S., Griffiths G.H., Mortimer S.R., Madeira L., Loupa Ramos I., Pinto Correia T. Measuring societal awareness of the rural agrarian landscape: indicators and scale issues. Joint Res. Centre 2012, EUR 25,192 EN-2012.
Paracchini M.L., Pacini C., Jones M.L.M., Pérez-Soba M. An aggregation framework to link indicators associated with multifunctional land use to the stakeholder evaluation of policy options. Ecol. Indic. 2011, 11(1):71-80.
Paracchini M.L., Zulian G., Kopperoinen L., Maes J., Schägner J.P., Termansen M., Zandersen M., Perez-Soba M., Scholefield P.A., Bidoglio G. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 45(0):371-385.
Pelosi C., Goulard M., Balent G. The spatial scale mismatch between ecological processes and agricultural management: do difficulties come from underlying theoretical frameworks?. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139(4):455-462.
Pinto-Correia T., Kristensen L. Linking research to practice: the landscape as the basis for integrating social and ecological perspectives of the rural. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 120(0):248-256.
Pinto-Correia T., Machado C., Barroso F., Picchi P., Turpin N., Bousset J.-P., Chabab N., Michelin Y. How do policy options modify landscape amenities? An assessment approach based on public expressed preferences. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 32(0):37-47.
Pinto Correia T., Carvalho Ribeiro S.M. The index of function suitability (IFS): a new tool for assessing the capacity of landscapes to provide amenity functions. Land Use Policy 2012, 29(1):23-34.
Proshansky H.M., Fabian A.K., Kaminoff R. Place-identity: physical world socialization of the self. J. Environ. Psychol. 1983, 3(1):57-83.
Ribe R.G. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us?. Environ. Manage. 1989, 13(1):55-74.
Rogge E., Nevens F., Gulinck H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2007, 82(4):159-174.
Sayadi S., Gonzalez-Roa M.C., Calatrava-Requena J. Public preferences for landscape features: the case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:334-344.
Schmitz M.F., De Aranzabal I., Pineda F.D. Spatial analysis of visitor preferences in the outdoor recreational niche of Mediterranean cultural landscapes. Environ. Conserv. 2007, 34(4):300-312.
Selman P. Planning at the landscape scale 2006, Routledge, London and New York.
Sevenant M., Antrop M. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90(9):2889-2899.
Sevenant M., Antrop M. Transdisciplinary landscape planning: does the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium). Land Use Policy 2010, 27(2):373-386.
Stanchi S., Freppaz M., Agnelli A., Reinsch T., Zanini E. Properties, best management practices and conservation of terraced soils in Southern Europe (from Mediterranean areas to the Alps): a review. Quat. Int. 2012, 265:90-100.
Surova D., Pinto-Correia T. Landscape preferences in the cork oak Montado region of Alentejo southern Portugal: sarching for valuable landscape characteristics for different user groups. Landsc. Res. 2008, 33(3):311-330.
Swanwick C. Landscape Character Assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland 2002, Countryside Agency, Cheltenham.
Swanwick C. Society's attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 2009, 26(Supplement 1):S62-S75.
Tahvanainen L., Tyrvainen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., Kolehmainen O. Forest management and public perceptions-visual versus verbal information. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2001, 53(1-4):53-70.
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity. MAINSTREAMING THE ECONOMICS OF NATURE A SYNTHESIS OF THE APPROACH, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF TEEB. ISBN 978-3-9813410-3-4.
Tempesta T. The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: a study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2010, 97(4):258-272.
Tips W.E.J., Vasdisara T. The influence of the socio-economic background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1986, 13:225-230. (Short communication).
Tress B., Tress G., Decamps H., d'Hauteserre A.M. Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2001, 57(3-4):137-141.
Turpin N., Dupraz P., Thenail C., Joannon A., Baudry J., Herviou S., Verburg P. Shaping the landscape: agricultural policies and local biodiversity schemes. Land Use Policy 2009, 26(2):273-283.
Tveit M., Ode A., Fry G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res. 2006, 31(3):229-255.
Ulrich R.S. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1986, 13(C):29-44.
Van Den Berg A.E., Vlek C.A.J., Coeterier J.F. Group differences in the aesthetic evalution of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. J. Environ. Psychol. 1998, 18(2):141-157.
Van Eetvelde V., Antrop M. Analyzing structural and functional changes of traditional landscapes-two examples from Southern France. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2004, 67(1-4):79-95.
van Zanten B.T., Verburg P.H., Koetse M.J., van Beukering P.J.H. Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: a meta-analysis of case studies. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2014, 132(0):89-101.
Verburg P.H., Overmars K.P. Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 24(9):1167-1181.
Verburg P.H., van de Steeg J., Veldkamp A., Willemen L. From land cover change to land function dynamics: a major challenge to improve land characterization. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90(3):1327-1335.
Volk M., Ewert F. Scaling methods in integrated assessment of agricultural systems-state-of-the-art and future directions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 142(1-2):1-5.
Wu J. Landscape of culture and culture of landscape: does landscape ecology need culture?. Landscape Ecology 2010, 25(8):1147-1150.