agricultural landscape; land systems; land-use policy; landscape aesthetics; spatial heterogeneity; Humans; Farms; Wood; Policy Making; Conservation of Natural Resources/methods; Ecosystem; Agriculture/methods; Pollution; Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health; Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
Abstract :
[en] The increase in farm plot size is one of the most apparent and significant trends that have influenced central and eastern European agricultural landscapes since the 1950s. In many countries where the average plot size in traditional land-use systems did not exceed several hectares, present-day plots reach the size of 200 ha or more. In recent times, efforts have been made to reverse this trend to restore important ecosystem functions and to re-establish the aesthetic values of everyday landscapes. Visual landscape quality is becoming a major driving force in the development of agricultural landscapes with known effects on people's well-being and health, and this quality plays an increasingly important role in agricultural policies. However, no comprehensive research has been carried out to establish the links between perceived visual landscape quality and the scale of the farm plot pattern. The current study was therefore designed to determine whether greater farmland pattern heterogeneity, i.e., smaller farm plot sizes, is consistent with higher visual preferences. The results showed that people preferred a small-scale plot pattern in landscapes characterized by a flat relief and a low proportion of woody vegetation. These homogeneous landscapes were also overall considered significantly less beautiful than more diverse landscapes. However, even a moderate decrease in plot size notably improved these low beauty scores. These preferences were displayed consistently by all respondents, and most strongly by older respondents, respondents with a higher level of education, and those professionally engaged in landscape design or conservation. The high level of consensus among respondents in rejecting further land consolidation in homogeneous landscapes, which form a large proportion of European farmland, underlines that the results of this study provide a valid argument for discussing sustainable agricultural plot sizes as part of agricultural policy-making.
Disciplines :
Agriculture & agronomy
Author, co-author :
Janeckova Molnarova, Kristina ; Department of Landscape and Urban Planning, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic
Bohnet, Iris C; Department of Landscape and Urban Planning, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic
Svobodova, Kamila ; Department of Landscape and Urban Planning, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic ; Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
Černý Pixová, Kateřina ; Department of Landscape and Urban Planning, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic
Daniels, Michael ; Department of Geography and the Environment, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80210, USA
Skaloš, Jan; Department of Applied Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic
Drhlíková, Kristýna; Department of Landscape and Urban Planning, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic
Azadi, Hossein ; Université de Liège - ULiège > TERRA Research Centre > Modélisation et développement ; Department of Landscape and Urban Planning, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic ; Faculty of Environmental Science and Engineering, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400000 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Zámečník, Roman; Department of Planting Design and Maintenance, Faculty of Horticulture, Mendel University in Brno, Valtická 337, 691 44 Lednice, Czech Republic
Sklenička, Petr; Department of Landscape and Urban Planning, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Praha-Suchdol, Czech Republic
Language :
English
Title :
Does Increasing Farm Plot Size Influence the Visual Quality of Everyday Agricultural Landscapes?
Publication date :
30 December 2022
Journal title :
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Chan K.M. Guerry A.D. Balvanera P. Klain S. Satterfield T. Basurto X. Bostrom A. Chuenpagdee R. Gould R. Halpern B.S. Where Are Cultural and Social in Ecosystem Services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement BioScience 2012 62 744 756 10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
Van Zanten B.T. Verburg P.H. Espinosa M. Gomez-y-Paloma S. Galimberti G. Kantelhardt J. Kapfer M. Lefebvre M. Manrique R. Piorr A. European Agricultural Landscapes, Common Agricultural Policy and Ecosystem Services: A Review Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014 34 309 325 10.1007/s13593-013-0183-4
Claval P. Reading the Rural Landscapes Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005 70 9 19 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.014
Plieninger T. Draux H. Fagerholm N. Bieling C. Bürgi M. Kizos T. Kuemmerle T. Primdahl J. Verburg P.H. The Driving Forces of Landscape Change in Europe: A Systematic Review of the Evidence Land Use Policy 2016 57 204 214 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.040
Wang Z. Chen L. Destination Choices of Chinese Rural–Urban Migrant Workers: Jobs, Amenities, and Local Spillovers J. Reg. Sci. 2019 59 586 609 10.1111/jors.12444
McKinney M.L. Urbanization as a Major Cause of Biotic Homogenization Biol. Conserv. 2006 127 247 260 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005
Jongman R.H. Homogenisation and Fragmentation of the European Landscape: Ecological Consequences and Solutions Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002 58 211 221 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00222-5
Cieszewska A. Comparative Landscape Structure Studies for Land Use Planning: Przedborski Landscape Park Case Study Probl. Ekol. Kraj. 2000 6 54 62
Lane B. What Is Rural Tourism? J. Sustain. Tour. 1994 2 7 21 10.1080/09669589409510680
Bell S. Tyrväinen L. Sievänen T. Pröbstl U. Simpson M. Outdoor Recreation and Nature Tourism: A European Perspective Living Rev. Landsc. Res. 2007 1 1 46 10.12942/lrlr-2007-2
English D.B. Bergstrom J.C. The Conceptual Links between Recreation Site Development and Regional Economic Impacts J. Reg. Sci. 1994 34 599 611 10.1111/j.1467-9787.1994.tb00885.x
Cílek V. Prohlédni si tu Zemi Dokořán Prague, Czech Republic 2012 978-80-7363-419-3
Zheng J. Chen G. Zhang T. Ding M. Liu B. Wang H. Exploring Spatial Variations in the Relationships between Landscape Functions and Human Activities in Suburban Rural Communities: A Case Study in Jiangning District, China Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021 18 9782 10.3390/ijerph18189782 34574707
Hurley P.T. Walker P.A. Whose Vision? Conspiracy Theory and Land-Use Planning in Nevada County, California Environ. Plan. A 2004 36 1529 1547 10.1068/a36186
Walker P. Fortmann L. Whose Landscape? A Political Ecology of the ‘Exurban’Sierra Cult. Geogr. 2003 10 469 491 10.1191/1474474003eu285oa
Daniel T.C. Meitner M.M. Representational Validity of Landscape Visualizations: The Effects of Graphical Realism on Perceived Scenic Beauty of Forest Vistas J. Environ. Psychol. 2001 21 61 72 10.1006/jevp.2000.0182
Fahrig L. Baudry J. Brotons L. Burel F.G. Crist T.O. Fuller R.J. Sirami C. Siriwardena G.M. Martin J.-L. Functional Landscape Heterogeneity and Animal Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes Ecol. Lett. 2011 14 101 112 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01559.x
Picuno C.A. Laković I. Roubis D. Picuno P. Kapetanović A. Analysis of the Characteristics of Traditional Rural Constructions for Animal Corrals in the Adriatic-Ionian Area Sustainability 2017 9 1441 10.3390/su9081441
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 Plan. 2001 57 257 268 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00208-0
Guarino R. Cutaia F. Giacopelli A.L. Menegoni P. Pelagallo F. Trotta C. Trombino G. Disintegration of Italian Rural Landscapes to International Environmental Agreements Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 2017 17 161 172 10.1007/s10784-015-9310-9
Gosnell H. Abrams J. Amenity Migration: Diverse Conceptualizations of Drivers, Socioeconomic Dimensions, and Emerging Challenges GeoJournal 2011 76 303 322 10.1007/s10708-009-9295-4
Domon G. Landscape as Resource: Consequences, Challenges and Opportunities for Rural Development Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011 100 338 340 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.014
Hersperger A.M. Grădinaru S.R. Pierri Daunt A.B. Imhof C.S. Fan P. Landscape Ecological Concepts in Planning: Review of Recent Developments Landsc. Ecol. 2021 36 2329 2345 10.1007/s10980-021-01193-y 34720410
Ceccon E. Productive Restoration as a Tool for Socioecological Landscape Conservation: The Case of “La Montaña” in Guerrero, Mexico Participatory Biodiversity Conservation Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany 2020 113 128
Balestrieri M. Theories and Methods of Rural Landscape Classification in Europe: The Italian Approach Int. J. Rural Manag. 2015 11 156 174 10.1177/0973005215604932
Balestrieri M. Ganciu A. Landscape Changes in Rural Areas: A Focus on Sardinian Territory Sustainability 2018 10 123 10.3390/su10010123
Ustaoglu E. Castillo C.P. Jacobs-Crisioni C. Lavalle C. Economic Evaluation of Agricultural Land to Assess Land Use Changes Land Use Policy 2016 56 125 146 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.020
Heinrichs J. Kuhn T. Pahmeyer C. Britz W. Economic Effects of Plot Sizes and Farm-Plot Distances in Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: A Farm-Level Analysis for Germany Agric. Syst. 2021 187 102992 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102992
Stevenson J. Vanlauwe B. Macours K. Johnson N. Krishnan L. Place F. Spielman D. Hughes K. Vlek P. Farmer Adoption of Plot-and Farm-Level Natural Resource Management Practices: Between Rhetoric and Reality Glob. Food Secur. 2019 20 101 104 10.1016/j.gfs.2019.01.003
Skaloš J. Molnárová K. Kottová P. Land Reforms Reflected in the Farming Landscape in East Bohemia and in Southern Sweden–Two Faces of Modernisation Appl. Geogr. 2012 35 114 123 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.003
Sklenicka P. Janovska V. Salek M. Vlasak J. Molnarova K. The Farmland Rental Paradox: Extreme Land Ownership Fragmentation as a New Form of Land Degradation Land Use Policy 2014 38 587 593 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.01.006
Šantrůčková M. Dostálek J. Demková K. Assessing Long-Term Spatial Changes of Natural Habitats Using Old Maps and Archival Sources: A Case Study from Central Europe Biodivers. Conserv. 2015 24 1899 1916 10.1007/s10531-015-0912-x
Herzog F. Steiner B. Bailey D. Baudry J. Billeter R. Bukácek R. De Blust G. De Cock R. Dirksen J. Dormann C.F. Assessing the Intensity of Temperate European Agriculture at the Landscape Scale Eur. J. Agron. 2006 24 165 181 10.1016/j.eja.2005.07.006
Kadlecova V. Dramstad W.E. Semancikova E. Edwards K.R. Landscape Changes and Their Influence on the Heterogeneity of Landscape of the South Bohemian Region, the Czech Republic Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2012 19 546 556 10.1080/13504509.2012.740512
Sklenicka P. Šímová P. Hrdinová K. Salek M. Changing Rural Landscapes along the Border of Austria and the Czech Republic between 1952 and 2009: Roles of Political, Socioeconomic and Environmental Factors Appl. Geogr. 2014 47 89 98 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.12.006
Liu X. Yang G. Que Q. Wang Q. Zhang Z. Huang L. How Do Landscape Heterogeneity, Community Structure, and Topographical Factors Contribute to the Plant Diversity of Urban Remnant Vegetation at Different Scales? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022 19 14302 10.3390/ijerph192114302
Sklenicka P. Classification of Farmland Ownership Fragmentation as a Cause of Land Degradation: A Review on Typology, Consequences, and Remedies Land Use Policy 2016 57 694 701 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.032
Sklenicka P. Molnarova K. Brabec E. Kumble P. Pittnerova B. Pixova K. Salek M. Remnants of Medieval Field Patterns in the Czech Republic: Analysis of Driving Forces behind Their Disappearance with Special Attention to the Role of Hedgerows Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009 129 465 473 10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.026
Stoate C. Boatman N.D. Borralho R.J. Carvalho C.R. De Snoo G.R. Eden P. Ecological Impacts of Arable Intensification in Europe J. Environ. Manage. 2001 63 337 365 10.1006/jema.2001.0473
Swain N. Collective Farms Which Work? Cambridge University Press Cambridge, MA, USA 1985
Janovska V. Simova P. Vlasak J. Sklenicka P. Factors Affecting Farm Size on the European Level and the National Level of the Czech Republic Agric. Econ. 2017 63 1 12
Concepción E.D. Aneva I. Jay M. Lukanov S. Marsden K. Moreno G. Oppermann R. Pardo A. Piskol S. Rolo V. Optimizing Biodiversity Gain of European Agriculture through Regional Targeting and Adaptive Management of Conservation Tools Biol. Conserv. 2020 241 108384 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108384
Sklenicka P. Efthimiou N. Zouhar J. van den Brink A. Kottova B. Vopravil J. Zastera V. Gebhart M. Bohnet I.C. Molnarova K.J. Impact of Sustainable Land Management Practices on Controlling Water Erosion Events: The Case of Hillslopes in the Czech Republic J. Clean. Prod. 2022 337 130416 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130416
Azadi H. Vanhaute E. Janečková K. Sklenička P. Teklemariam D. Feng L. Witlox F. Evolution of Land Distribution in the Context of Development Theories Land Use Policy 2020 97 104730 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104730
Van Oost K. Govers G. Desmet P. Evaluating the Effects of Changes in Landscape Structure on Soil Erosion by Water and Tillage Landsc. Ecol. 2000 15 577 589 10.1023/A:1008198215674
García-Ruiz J.M. The Effects of Land Uses on Soil Erosion in Spain: A Review Catena 2010 81 1 11 10.1016/j.catena.2010.01.001
Boardman J. Ligneau L. de Roo A.D. Vandaele K. Flooding of Property by Runoff from Agricultural Land in Northwestern Europe Geomorphology and Natural Hazards Elsevier Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1994 183 196
Sklenicka P. Molnarova K.J. Salek M. Simova P. Vlasak J. Sekac P. Janovska V. Owner or Tenant: Who Adopts Better Soil Conservation Practices? Land Use Policy 2015 47 253 261 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.017
Östman Ö. Ekbom B. Bengtsson J. Weibull A.-C. Landscape Complexity and Farming Practice Influence the Condition of Polyphagous Carabid Beetles Ecol. Appl. 2001 11 480 488 10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0480:LCAFPI]2.0.CO;2
Thies C. Steffan-Dewenter I. Tscharntke T. Effects of Landscape Context on Herbivory and Parasitism at Different Spatial Scales Oikos 2003 101 18 25 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12567.x
Bianchi F.J. Booij C.J.H. Tscharntke T. Sustainable Pest Regulation in Agricultural Landscapes: A Review on Landscape Composition, Biodiversity and Natural Pest Control Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2006 273 1715 1727 10.1098/rspb.2006.3530
Termorshuizen J.W. Opdam P. Van den Brink A. Incorporating Ecological Sustainability into Landscape Planning Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007 79 374 384 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.04.005
Driscoll D.A. Banks S.C. Barton P.S. Lindenmayer D.B. Smith A.L. Conceptual Domain of the Matrix in Fragmented Landscapes Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013 28 605 613 10.1016/j.tree.2013.06.010
Ode Å. Fry G. Tveit M.S. Messager P. Miller D. Indicators of Perceived Naturalness as Drivers of Landscape Preference J. Environ. Manag. 2009 90 375 383 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
Fry G. Tveit M.S. Ode Å. Velarde M.D. The Ecology of Visual Landscapes: Exploring the Conceptual Common Ground of Visual and Ecological Landscape Indicators Ecol. Indic. 2009 9 933 947 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.11.008
Kalivoda O. Vojar J. Skřivanová Z. Zahradník D. Consensus in Landscape Preference Judgments: The Effects of Landscape Visual Aesthetic Quality and Respondents’ Characteristics J. Environ. Manag. 2014 137 36 44 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.009 24594757
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 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
Howley P. Donoghue C.O. Hynes S. Exploring Public Preferences for Traditional Farming Landscapes Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012 104 66 74 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.006
Karjalainen E. Tyrväinen L. Visualization in Forest Landscape Preference Research: A Finnish Perspective Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002 59 13 28 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00244-4
Betakova V. Vojar J. Sklenicka P. Wind Turbines Location: How Many and How Far? Appl. Energy 2015 151 23 31 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.060
Angileri V. Toccolini A. The Assessment of Visual Quality as a Tool for the Conservation of Rural Landscape Diversity Landsc. Urban Plan. 1993 24 105 112 10.1016/0169-2046(93)90089-V
Swanwick C. Society’s Attitudes to and Preferences for Land and Landscape Land Use Policy 2009 26 S62 S75 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.025
Ramírez Á. Ayuga-Téllez E. Gallego E. Fuentes J.M. García A.I. A Simplified Model to Assess Landscape Quality from Rural Roads in Spain Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011 142 205 212 10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.007
Zhao J. Xu W. Li R. Visual Preference of Trees: The Effects of Tree Attributes and Seasons Urban For. Urban Green. 2017 25 19 25 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.04.015
Hammitt W.E. Patterson M.E. Noe F.P. Identifying and Predicting Visual Preference of Southern Appalachian Forest Recreation Vistas Landsc. Urban Plan. 1994 29 171 183 10.1016/0169-2046(94)90026-4
Dramstad W.E. Tveit M.S. Fjellstad W.J. Fry G.L. Relationships between Visual Landscape Preferences and Map-Based Indicators of Landscape Structure Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006 78 465 474 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006
Bulut Z. Yilmaz H. Determination of Waterscape Beauties through Visual Quality Assessment Method Environ. Monit. Assess. 2009 154 459 468 10.1007/s10661-008-0412-5 18584297
Clay G.R. Daniel T.C. Scenic Landscape Assessment: The Effects of Land Management Jurisdiction on Public Perception of Scenic Beauty Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000 49 1 13 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00055-4
Clay G.R. Smidt R.K. Assessing the Validity and Reliability of Descriptor Variables Used in Scenic Highway Analysis Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004 66 239 255 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00114-2
Lovell S.T. Sullivan W.C. Environmental Benefits of Conservation Buffers in the United States: Evidence, Promise, and Open Questions Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006 112 249 260 10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.002
Strumse E. Perceptual Dimensions in the Visual Preferences for Agrarian Landscapes in Western Norway J. Environ. Psychol. 1994 14 281 292 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80219-1
Rogge E. Nevens F. Gulinck H. Perception of Rural Landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond Aesthetics Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007 82 159 174 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006
Arriaza M. Cañas-Ortega J.F. Cañas-Madueño J.A. Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the Visual Quality of Rural Landscapes Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004 69 115 125 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029
Tempesta T. The Perception of Agrarian Historical Landscapes: A Study of the Veneto Plain in Italy Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010 97 258 272 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.010
Svobodova K. Sklenicka P. Vojar J. How Does the Representation Rate of Features in a Landscape Affect Visual Preferences? A Case Study from a Post-Mining Landscape Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2015 29 266 276 10.1080/17480930.2013.873258
van Zanten B.T. Zasada I. Koetse M.J. Ungaro F. Häfner K. Verburg P.H. A Comparative Approach to Assess the Contribution of Landscape Features to Aesthetic and Recreational Values in Agricultural Landscapes Ecosyst. Serv. 2016 17 87 98 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.011
Scott K.E. Benson J.F. Public and Professional Attitudes to Landscape: Scoping Study SNH Edinburgh, Scotland 2002
Daugstad K. Rønningen K. Skar B. Agriculture as an Upholder of Cultural Heritage? Conceptualizations and Value Judgements—A Norwegian Perspective in International Context J. Rural Stud. 2006 22 67 81 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.06.002
Skaloš J. Classification System for Monitoring Historic Changes in Forest and Non-Forest Woody Vegetation—A Basis for Management Open J. For. 2014 4 75 10.4236/ojf.2014.41012
Svobodova K. Vojar J. Sklenicka P. Filova L. Presentation Matters: Causes of Differences in Preferences for Agricultural Landscapes Displayed via Photographs and Videos Space Cult. 2018 21 259 273 10.1177/1206331217744186
Franco D. Franco D. Mannino I. Zanetto G. The Impact of Agroforestry Networks on Scenic Beauty Estimation: The Role of a Landscape Ecological Network on a Socio-Cultural Process Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003 62 119 138 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00127-5
Palmer J.F. Using Spatial Metrics to Predict Scenic Perception in a Changing Landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004 69 201 218 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.010
Eco U. The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA, USA 1988
Tuan Y.F. Topophilia: A Study of Environment Perception Attitudes and Values Prentice Hall International Hoboken, NJ, USA 1974
Yu K. Cultural Variations in Landscape Preference: Comparisons among Chinese Sub-Groups and Western Design Experts Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995 32 107 126 10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9
Kaplan R. Herbert E.J. Cultural and Sub-Cultural Comparisons in Preferences for Natural Settings Landsc. Urban Plan. 1987 14 281 293 10.1016/0169-2046(87)90040-5
De Groot W.T. van den Born R.J. Visions of Nature and Landscape Type Preferences: An Exploration in The Netherlands Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003 63 127 138 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00184-6
Sklenicka P. Non-Productive Principles of Landscape Rehabilitation after Long-Term Opencast Mining in North-West Bohemia J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2004 104 83 88
Chevreul M.E. The Principles of Harmony and Contrast of Colours, and Their Applications to the Arts Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans London, UK 1855
Lynch K. The Image of the Environment Image City 1960 11 1 13
Kaplan R. Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective Cambridge University Press Cambridge, MA, USA 1989
Moore E.O. A Prison Environment’s Effect on Health Care Service Demands J. Environ. Syst. 1981 11 17 34 10.2190/KM50-WH2K-K2D1-DM69
Leather P. Pyrgas M. Beale D. Lawrence C. Windows in the Workplace: Sunlight, View, and Occupational Stress Environ. Behav. 1998 30 739 762 10.1177/001391659803000601
Velarde M.D. Fry G. Tveit M. Health Effects of Viewing Landscapes–Landscape Types in Environmental Psychology Urban For. Urban Green. 2007 6 199 212 10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.001
Ryan R.L. Preserving Rural Character in New England: Local Residents’ Perceptions of Alternative Residential Development Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002 61 19 35 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00066-X
Balling J.D. Falk J.H. Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments Environ. Behav. 1982 14 5 28 10.1177/0013916582141001
Filova L. Vojar J. Svobodova K. Sklenicka P. The Effect of Landscape Type and Landscape Elements on Public Visual Preferences: Ways to Use Knowledge in the Context of Landscape Planning J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015 58 2037 2055 10.1080/09640568.2014.973481
Molnárová K.J. Skřivanová Z. Kalivoda O. Sklenička P. Rural Identity and Landscape Aesthetics in Exurbia: Some Issues to Resolve from a Central European Perspective Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2017 25 2 12 10.1515/mgr-2017-0001