IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v3y2014i3p598-616d37692.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions

Author

Listed:
  • Eija Pouta

    (Economic Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Ioanna Grammatikopoulou

    (Economic Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland)

  • Timo Hurme

    (Plant Production Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Datum, Tietotie, 31600 Jokioinen, Finland)

  • Katriina Soini

    (Economic Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Laboratorium Uutetie 2 A, 31600 Jokioinen, Finland)

  • Marja Uusitalo

    (Plant Production Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Eteläranta 55, 96300 Rovaniemi, Finland)

Abstract

Better recognition of public perceptions is called for in developing policies that affect landscape qualities, such as agri-environmental policies. The present study focused on the evaluation of typical agricultural landscapes in Finland. We utilized and operationalized the visual landscape quality scales introduced by Tveit et al. (2006) and further explored how these scales can be applied in citizen evaluation of agricultural landscapes. From landscape data collected via an Internet survey, we analysed whether and how the attributes of agricultural landscapes were linked to their evaluation. The results demonstrated that visual concepts such as openness, naturalness, species richness and the impression of being taken care of were significantly associated with six landscape attributes, i.e. , grain, cattle, bales, farmhouses, buses and disturbances. A relationship between key landscape concepts and normative evaluation was found. The normative pleasantness of the landscape also significantly associated with individual landscape attributes and the socio-demographic characteristics of the perceivers.

Suggested Citation

  • Eija Pouta & Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Timo Hurme & Katriina Soini & Marja Uusitalo, 2014. "Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:3:y:2014:i:3:p:598-616:d:37692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/3/3/598/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/3/3/598/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O Donoghue, 2012. "Countryside Preferences: Exploring Individuals' Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of the Traditional Farm Landscape," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6), pages 703-719, December.
    2. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    4. Arne Arnberger & Renate Eder, 2011. "Exploring the Heterogeneity of Rural Landscape Preferences: An Image-Based Latent Class Approach," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 19-40, February.
    5. Orly Rechtman, 2013. "Visual Perception of Agricultural Cultivated Landscapes: Key Components as Predictors for Landscape Preferences," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(3), pages 273-294, June.
    6. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    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. Lucia Rocchi & Anastasija Novikova & Bernardas Vaznonis, 2022. "Assessing Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Landscape Attributes in Lithuania," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-15, September.
    2. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Li Cong & Yujun Zhang & Ching-Hui (Joan) Su & Ming-Hsiang Chen & Jinnan Wang, 2019. "Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    3. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    4. Yadav, Lava Prakash & O'Neill, Stephen, 2013. "Is there agreement between beneficiaries on who should bear the costs of conserving farm landscapes?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 62-70.
    5. van Zanten, Boris T. & Koetse, Mark J. & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "Economic valuation at all cost? The role of the price attribute in a landscape preference study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 289-296.
    6. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    7. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    10. Ko, Sungmin & Shin, Jungwoo, 2023. "Projection of fuel cell electric vehicle demand reflecting the feedback effects between market conditions and market share affected by spatial factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    11. Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher & Riccardo Scarpa, 2011. "Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(8), pages 1061-1076, December.
    12. Yao, Richard T. & Scarpa, Riccardo & Harrison, Duncan R. & Burns, Rhys J., 2019. "Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Useche, Pilar & Blare, Trent, 2014. "The Sustainable Choice: How Gendered Difference in the Importance of Ecological Benefits Affect Production Decisions of Smallholder Cacao Producing Households in Ecuador," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 174285, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity," Research Reports 94816, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    15. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    16. Tobias Börger & Oliver Frör & Sören Weiß, 2017. "The relationship between perceived difficulty and randomness in discrete choice experiments: Investigating reasons for and consequences of difficulty," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2017-03, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    17. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    18. Rob Fraser, 2009. "Land Heterogeneity, Agricultural Income Forgone and Environmental Benefit: An Assessment of Incentive Compatibility Problems in Environmental Stewardship Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 190-201, February.
    19. Yingmei Tang & Huifang Cai & Rongmao Liu, 2022. "Will marketing strategies affect farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for catastrophe insurance? Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 1376-1389, January.
    20. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.

    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:gam:jlands:v:3:y:2014:i:3:p:598-616:d:37692. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.