IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i7p2810-d340295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz

    (Department of Hydrobiology and Ecosystems Protections, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Dobrzańskiego 37, 20-262 Lublin, Poland)

  • Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek

    (Department of Grassland and Landscape Shaping, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Akademicka 13, 20-950 Lublin, Poland)

Abstract

Landscape quality (LQ) encompasses diverse characteristic of the natural and cultural environment. The most effective tool to analyze LQ is the use of indicators. The main problem in the assessment of LQ is not the lack of indicators, but its multitude. That is why, the indicators’ categorization is a problematic issue. The paper aims to introduce and test the methodology for selecting the suitable indicators based on the example of two national parks located in the south-east part of Poland. The method composed of the following stages: (1) Selection of spatial units being analyzed; (2) selection of indicators type(s); (3) selection of specific indicators; (4) calculation of indicator set no 1; (5) analysis of the correlation between indicators’ pairs; (6) selection of a final set of indicators; (7) analysis of effectiveness. The latter stage, refers to the statistical analysis of significance between results obtained dependently on the data sources, a spatial unit of analysis and analyzed regions. The results showed that the categorization composed of ten, mainly composite indicators, can be applied to conclude on different levels of LQ of protected areas. The differences between two analyzed data sources, different spatial units, as well as diverse regions, occurred to be statistically insignificant. Generally, the results of the effectiveness analysis showed that a final categorization of LQ indicators is adequate to conclude on the diverse dimensions of LQ of analyzed protected areas.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2810-:d:340295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2810/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2810/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Peter Howley, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ rural landscape preferences," Working Papers 1105, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    4. Swetnam, Ruth D. & Tweed, Fiona S., 2018. "A tale of two landscapes: Transferring landscape quality metrics from Wales to Iceland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 565-576.
    5. 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.
    6. Simensen, Trond & Halvorsen, Rune & Erikstad, Lars, 2018. "Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: A systematic review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 557-569.
    7. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    8. Marta Kubacka, 2019. "Evaluation of the ecological efficiency of landscape protection in areas of different protection status. A case study from Poland," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(5), pages 628-641, July.
    9. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    10. Luca Battisti & Filippo Corsini & Natalia Marzia Gusmerotti & Federica Larcher, 2019. "Management and Perception of Metropolitan Natura 2000 Sites: A Case Study of La Mandria Park (Turin, Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-19, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Zdeněk Odvárka & Jitka Meňházová, 2024. "Innovations in the methodological approach to quantifying and evaluating the supported effects of forests for recreational and educational ecosystem services," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 70(5), pages 235-248.
    7. 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.
    8. Andrzej Greinert & Maria Mrówczyńska, 2020. "The Impact of the Process of Academic Education on Differences in Landscape Perception between the Students of Environmental Engineering and Civil Engineering," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, June.
    9. Rolf, Werner & Diehl, Katharina & Zasada, Ingo & Wiggering, Hubert, 2020. "Integrating farmland in urban green infrastructure planning. An evidence synthesis for informed policymaking," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura E., 2015. "Households' Adoption of Drought Tolerant Plants: An Adaptation to Climate Change?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205544, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    12. Qindong Fan & Fengtian Du & Hu Li, 2020. "A Study of the Spatial Form of Maling Village, Henan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    13. Rong Fan & Junxi Fan & Jiayu Song & Kaiyuan Li & Wenli Ji, 2021. "Naturalness in the City: Demographic Groups’ Differences in Preference for Deciduous Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-21, July.
    14. Fedrigotti Valérie Bossi & Troiano Stefania & Fischer Christian & Marangon Francesco, 2020. "Public Preferences for Farmed Landscapes: the Case of Traditional Chestnut Orchards in South Tyrol," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 99-118, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    17. 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.
    18. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    19. Reza Keshtkaran & Amin Habibi & Hamidreza Sharif, 2017. "Aesthetic Preferences for Visual Quality of Urban Landscape in Derak High-Rise Buildings (Shiraz)," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(5), pages 1-94, September.
    20. 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.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2810-:d:340295. 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.