IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v53y2016icp112-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The EU societal awareness of landscape indicator: A review of its meaning, utility and performance across different scales

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, P.J.
  • Andersen, E.
  • Capitani, C.
  • Carvalho Ribeiro, S.
  • Griffiths, G.H.
  • Loupa-Ramos, I.
  • Madeira, L.
  • Mortimer, S.R.
  • Paracchini, M.L.
  • Pinto Correia, T.
  • Schmidt, A.M.
  • Simoncini, R.
  • Wascher, D.M.

Abstract

There is increasing recognition that agricultural landscapes meet multiple societal needs and demands beyond provision of economic and environmental goods and services. Accordingly, there have been significant calls for the inclusion of societal, amenity and cultural values in agri-environmental landscape indicators to assist policy makers in monitoring the wider impacts of land-based policies. However, capturing the amenity and cultural values that rural agrarian areas provide, by use of such indicators, presents significant challenges. The EU social awareness of landscape indicator represents a new class of generalized social indicator using a top–down methodology to capture the social dimensions of landscape without reference to the specific structural and cultural characteristics of individual landscapes. This paper reviews this indicator in the context of existing agri-environmental indicators and their differing design concepts. Using a stakeholder consultation approach in five case study regions, the potential and limitations of the indicator are evaluated, with a particular focus on its perceived meaning, utility and performance in the context of different user groups and at different geographical scales. This analysis supplements previous EU-wide assessments, through regional scale assessment of the limitations and potentialities of the indicator and the need for further data collection. The evaluation finds that the perceived meaning of the indicator does not vary with scale, but in common with all mapped indicators, the usefulness of the indicator, to different user groups, does change with scale of presentation. This indicator is viewed as most useful when presented at the scale of governance at which end users operate. The relevance of the different sub-components of the indicator are also found to vary across regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, P.J. & Andersen, E. & Capitani, C. & Carvalho Ribeiro, S. & Griffiths, G.H. & Loupa-Ramos, I. & Madeira, L. & Mortimer, S.R. & Paracchini, M.L. & Pinto Correia, T. & Schmidt, A.M. & Simoncini, , 2016. "The EU societal awareness of landscape indicator: A review of its meaning, utility and performance across different scales," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 112-122.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:53:y:2016:i:c:p:112-122
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837715001283
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.038?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. N. Turpin & P. Dupraz & C. Thenail & A. Joannon & J. Baudry & S. Herviou & P. Verburg, 2009. "Shaping the landscape: agricultural policies and local biodiversity schemes," Post-Print hal-00453894, HAL.
    2. Yrjola, Tapani & Kola, Jukka, 2004. "Consumer Preferences Regarding Multifunctional Agriculture," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 7(2), pages 1-13.
    3. van Rensburg, Tom M. & Mill, Greig A. & Common, Mick & Lovett, Jon, 2002. "Preferences and multiple use forest management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 231-244, December.
    4. Daniel W. Bromley, 2000. "Can Agriculture Become an Environmental Asset?," World Economics, World Economics, 1 Ivory Square, Plantation Wharf, London, United Kingdom, SW11 3UE, vol. 1(3), pages 127-139, July.
    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. Cerquetti, Mara & Nanni, Caterina & Vitale, Carmen, 2019. "Managing the landscape as a common good? Evidence from the case of “Mutonia” (Italy)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. von Münchhausen, Susanne & Kirwan, James & Maye, Damian & Muñoz-Rojas, José & Pinto-Correia, Teresa & Prosperi, Paolo & Vergamini, Daniele, 2023. "Enacted relations and the resilience of territorially embedded production systems in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    3. Sowińska-Świerkosz, Barbara & Soszyński, Dawid, 2022. "Spatial indicators as a tool to support the decision-making process in relation to different goals of rural planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).

    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. Werner Hediger, 2013. "From Multifunctionality and Sustainability of Agriculture to the Social Responsibility of the Agri-food System," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 6(1), pages 59-80.
    2. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    3. Hyunhee Jung, 2020. "Estimating the social value of multifunctional agriculture (MFA) with choice experiment," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(3), pages 120-128.
    4. Jens Abildtrup & Jacques-Alexandre Laye & Maximilien Laye & Anne Stenger, 2012. "Irreversibility and Uncertainty in Multifunctional Forest Management Allocation," Post-Print hal-01072290, HAL.
    5. Morgan, Edward A. & Buckwell, Andrew & Guidi, Caterina & Garcia, Beatriz & Rimmer, Lawrence & Cadman, Tim & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Capturing multiple forest ecosystem services for just benefit sharing: The Basket of Benefits Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    6. Niemi, Jarkko K. & Sinisalo, Alina & Valros, Anna & Heinonen, Mari, 2012. "Market and policy-oriented incentives to provide animal welfare: The case of tail biting," 126th Seminar, June 27-29, 2012, Capri, Italy 125957, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Lankoski, Jussi E. & Ollikainen, Markku, 2009. "Biofuel policies and the environment: the effects of biofuel feedstock production on climate, water quality and biodiversity," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51677, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Chen Qiuzhen & Sumelius John & Arovuori Kyösti, 2009. "The evolution of policies for multifunctional agriculture and rural areas in China and Finland," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 1(4), pages 202-209, January.
    9. Pavel, Ciaian & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "The Value of EU Agricultural Landscape," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 102727, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Rathmann, Régis & Szklo, Alexandre & Schaeffer, Roberto, 2010. "Land use competition for production of food and liquid biofuels: An analysis of the arguments in the current debate," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 14-22.
    11. Werner Hediger, 2003. "Alternative policy measures and farmers' participation to improve rural landscapes and water quality: A conceptual framework," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 139(III), pages 333-350, September.
    12. Sylvie Ferrari, 2003. "Land use and agriculture sustainability: does landscape matter?," ERSA conference papers ersa03p56, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Maja KOŽAR & Markus KEMPEN & Wolfgang BRITZ & Emil ERJAVEC, 2012. "Flattening and redistribution of the CAP direct payments for the EU27 regions," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 58(10), pages 443-453.
    14. Carvalho-Ribeiro, Sónia & Pinto Correia, Teresa & Paracchini, Maria Luisa & Schüpbach, Beatrice & Ode Sang, Asa & Vanderheyden, Vincent & Southern, Adrian & Jones, Philip & Contreras, Beatriz & O′Rior, 2016. "Assessing the ability of rural agrarian areas to provide cultural ecosystem services (CES): A multi scale social indicator framework (MSIF)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 8-19.
    15. Pavel Ciaian & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2011. "Valuation of EU Agricultural Landscape," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2011_20, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    16. Huber, Robert, 2007. "Bio-Energy-A By-Product Of Rural Landscape Maintenance?," 47th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 26-28, 2007 7619, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    17. Carvalho-Ribeiro, Sónia Maria & Lovett, Andrew, 2011. "Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 46-54, January.
    18. Gilles Allaire & Eric Cahuzac & Michel Simioni, 2009. "Contractualisation et diffusion spatiale des mesures agro-environnementales herbagères," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 90(1), pages 23-50.
    19. Klaus Mittenzwei & Stefan Mann & Karen Refsgaard & Valborg Kvakkestad, 2016. "Hot cognition in agricultural policy preferences in Norway?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(1), pages 61-71, March.
    20. Paunić, Alida, 2016. "Brazil, Preservation of Forest and Biodiversity," MPRA Paper 71462, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:lauspo:v:53:y:2016:i:c:p:112-122. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.