IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v31y2018ipcp296-307.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Hermes, Johannes
  • Albert, Christian
  • von Haaren, Christina

Abstract

A high landscape aesthetic quality (LAQ) arguably is an important ecosystem service that positively affects humans’ health and well-being. It is strongly appreciated by citizens and provides the backdrop and precondition for many outdoor activities. The objective of this paper is to map and assess the LAQ of landscapes across Germany. We developed and tested a method for a spatially explicit national assessment of LAQ. The method uses landscape diversity, naturalness and uniqueness as established indicators for landscape attractiveness, and applies several landscape metrics as proxies to spatially evaluate and map each of them. The results demonstrate that the LAQ varies substantially across Germany. Areas of high LAQ are located in the German high and many low mountain ranges, in riverine landscapes, and at the German coast and islands, whereas particularly low LAQ scores are found in urban agglomerations and intensively used open agrarian landscapes. The proportional distribution of values shows that most area is covered with mediocre scores, and that areas of extremely high or low scores are rare. The results respond to the EU biodiversity strategy’s request to member states to map and assess ecosystem services, and can usefully inform national and sub-national policy-, plan-, and decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Hermes, Johannes & Albert, Christian & von Haaren, Christina, 2018. "Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 296-307.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:31:y:2018:i:pc:p:296-307
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617301857
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & A, 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    2. Andrea Abraham & Kathrin Sommerhalder & Thomas Abel, 2010. "Landscape and well-being: a scoping study on the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 55(1), pages 59-69, February.
    3. Antara Sen & Amii Harwood & Ian Bateman & Paul Munday & Andrew Crowe & Luke Brander & Jibonayan Raychaudhuri & Andrew Lovett & Jo Foden & Allan Provins, 2014. "Economic Assessment of the Recreational Value of Ecosystems: Methodological Development and National and Local Application," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(2), pages 233-249, February.
    4. Zhongwei Guo & Lin Zhang & Yiming Li, 2010. "Increased Dependence of Humans on Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-8, October.
    5. Maes, Joachim & Egoh, Benis & Willemen, Louise & Liquete, Camino & Vihervaara, Petteri & Schägner, Jan Philipp & Grizzetti, Bruna & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Notte, Alessandra La & Zulian, Grazia & Boura, 2012. "Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 31-39.
    6. Maes, Joachim & Liquete, Camino & Teller, Anne & Erhard, Markus & Paracchini, Maria Luisa & Barredo, José I. & Grizzetti, Bruna & Cardoso, Ana & Somma, Francesca & Petersen, Jan-Erik & Meiner, Andrus , 2016. "An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 14-23.
    7. Peña, Lorena & Casado-Arzuaga, Izaskun & Onaindia, Miren, 2015. "Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 108-118.
    8. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    9. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    10. Martin Goossen & Henk Meeuwsen & Jappe Franke & Arjen Jong Alterra, 2013. "Destination Inspiration Using eTourism Tool," Springer Books, in: Zheng Xiang & Iis Tussyadiah (ed.), Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2014, edition 127, pages 895-907, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lee, Heera & Seo, Bumsuk & Cord, Anna F. & Volk, Martin & Lautenbach, Sven, 2022. "Using crowdsourced images to study selected cultural ecosystem services and their relationships with species richness and carbon sequestration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    2. Thiele, Julia & Albert, Christian & Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina, 2020. "Assessing and quantifying offered cultural ecosystem services of German river landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    3. Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz & Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek, 2020. "The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Tian Wang & Xiaodong Chen & Xin Zheng & Yayan Lu & Fang Han & Zhaoping Yang, 2022. "Identification of Priority Conservation Areas for Natural Heritage Sites Integrating Landscape Ecological Risks and Ecosystem Services: A Case Study in the Bogda, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-17, February.
    5. O'Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Kilgarriff, Paul & Ryan, Mary & Tsakiridis, Andreas, 2020. "Assessing preferences for rural landscapes: An attribute based choice modelling approach," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(2), August.
    6. Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina & Schmücker, Dirk & Albert, Christian, 2021. "Nature-based recreation in Germany: Insights into volume and economic significance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Seweryn Zielinski & Celene B. Milanés & Elena Cambon & Ofelia Perez Montero & Lourdes Rizo & Andres Suarez & Benjamin Cuker & Giorgio Anfuso, 2021. "An Integrated Method for Landscape Assessment: Application to Santiago de Cuba Bay, Cuba," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-30, April.
    8. Wende, Wolfgang & Walz, Ulrich & Stein, Christian, 2020. "Evaluating municipal landscape plans and their influence on selected aspects of landscape development – An empirical study from Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Riyadh Mundher & Shamsul Abu Bakar & Suhardi Maulan & Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof & Syuhaily Osman & Ammar Al-Sharaa & Hangyu Gao, 2022. "Exploring Awareness and Public Perception towards the Importance of Visual Aesthetics for Preservation of Permanent Forest Reserve (PFR) in Malaysia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, August.
    10. Fabio A. Madau & Brunella Arru & Roberto Furesi & Paola Sau & Pietro Pulina, 2022. "Public perception of ecosystem and social services produced by Sardinia extensive dairy sheep farming systems," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, December.
    11. Chen, Sha & Chen, Hong & Yang, Runjia & Ye, Yanmei, 2023. "Linking social-ecological management and ecosystem service bundles: Lessons from a peri-urban agriculture landscape," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    12. Lehmann, Paul & Tafarte, Philip, 2024. "Exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment: One man’s blessing, another man’s curse," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    13. Sponagel, Christian & Bendel, Daniela & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Weber, Tobias Karl David & Gayler, Sebastian & Streck, Thilo & Bahrs, Enno, 2022. "Integrated assessment of regional approaches for biodiversity offsetting in urban-rural areas – A future based case study from Germany using arable land as an example," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    14. Tafarte, Philip & Lehmann, Paul, 2023. "Quantifying trade-offs for the spatial allocation of onshore wind generation capacity – A case study for Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    15. Yayan Lu & Fang Han & Qun Liu & Zhaoguo Wang & Tian Wang & Zhaoping Yang, 2022. "Evaluation of Potential for Nature-Based Recreation in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: A Spatial-Temporal Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-16, May.
    16. Astrid Vannoppen & Jeroen Degerickx & Anne Gobin, 2021. "Evaluating Landscape Attractiveness with Geospatial Data, A Case Study in Flanders, Belgium," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Przemysław Śleszyński, 2021. "Multi-Item Assessment of Physiognomic Diversity of Geocomplexes as a Comprehensive Method of Visual-Aesthetic Landscape Assessment," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 1(1), pages 1-25, March.
    18. Tafarte, Philip & Lehmann, Paul, 2021. "Quantifying trade-offs for the spatial allocation of onshore wind generation capacity: A case study for Germany," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2021, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    19. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.
    20. Fiona Nevzati & Mart Külvik & Joanna Storie & Liisa-Maria Tiidu & Simon Bell, 2023. "Assessment of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Well-Being: Testing a Method for Evaluating Natural Environment and Contact Types in the Harku Municipality, Estonia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-24, June.
    21. Tran, Duy X. & Pearson, Diane & Palmer, Alan & Gray, David & Lowry, John & Dominati, Estelle J., 2022. "A comprehensive spatially-explicit analysis of agricultural landscape multifunctionality using a New Zealand hill country farm case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    22. Lehmann, Paul & Tafarte, Philip, 2023. "The opportunity costs of environmental exclusion zones for renewable energy deployment," UFZ Discussion Papers 2/2023, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    23. Michael Roth & Silvio Hildebrandt & Ulrich Walz & Wolfgang Wende, 2021. "Large-Area Empirically Based Visual Landscape Quality Assessment for Spatial Planning—A Validation Approach by Method Triangulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.
    24. Marta Sylla & Tadeusz Lasota & Szymon Szewrański, 2019. "Valuing Environmental Amenities in Peri-Urban Areas: Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Yoshimura, Nobuhiko & Hiura, Tsutom, 2017. "Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 68-78.
    3. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    4. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    5. Thiele, Julia & Albert, Christian & Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina, 2020. "Assessing and quantifying offered cultural ecosystem services of German river landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    6. Rust, Niki A. & Rehackova, Lucia & Naab, Francis & Abrams, Amber & Hughes, Courtney & Merkle, Bethann Garramon & Clark, Beth & Tindale, Sophie, 2021. "What does the UK public want farmland to look like?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    7. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Smithers, Richard J. & Hedblom, Marcus & Hedenås, Henrik & Mikusiński, Grzegorz & Pedersen, Eja & Sandström, Per & Svensson, Johan, 2017. "Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-70.
    8. Rabe, Sven-Erik & Gantenbein, Remo & Richter, Kai-Florian & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2018. "Increasing the credibility of expert-based models with preference surveys – Mapping recreation in the riverine zone," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 308-317.
    9. Sarah Marie Müller & Jasmin Peisker & Claudia Bieling & Kathrin Linnemann & Konrad Reidl & Klaus Schmieder, 2019. "The Importance of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Landscape Visitors in the Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, May.
    10. Hermes, Johannes & von Haaren, Christina & Schmücker, Dirk & Albert, Christian, 2021. "Nature-based recreation in Germany: Insights into volume and economic significance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    11. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    12. Cecilia Arnaiz-Schmitz & Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui & María F. Schmitz, 2021. "Recreational and Nature-Based Tourism as a Cultural Ecosystem Service. Assessment and Mapping in a Rural-Urban Gradient of Central Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Schirpke, Uta & Meisch, Claude & Marsoner, Thomas & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2018. "Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 336-350.
    14. Schägner, Jan Philipp & Brander, Luke & Paracchini, Maria Luisa & Maes, Joachim & Gollnow, Florian & Bertzky, Bastian, 2018. "Spatial dimensions of recreational ecosystem service values: A review of meta-analyses and a combination of meta-analytic value-transfer and GIS," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 395-409.
    15. Sarkki, Simo, 2017. "Governance services: Co-producing human well-being with ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 82-91.
    16. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    17. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    18. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    19. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    20. Holt, Alison R. & Mears, Meghann & Maltby, Lorraine & Warren, Philip, 2015. "Understanding spatial patterns in the production of multiple urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-46.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:31:y:2018:i:pc:p:296-307. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.