IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i13p7426-d587449.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Landscape Change in the Alps—What Postcards Have to Say about Aesthetic Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Clara Tattoni

    (DAGRI Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agrarie, Alimentari Ambientali e Forestali, University of Florence, 50121 Firenze, Italy
    TiDES, Institute of Sustainable Tourism and Economic Development, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35001 Las Palmas, Spain)

  • Gianluca Grilli

    (Department of Economics Division Dublin, Economic and Social Research Institute, D06 KN72 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Jorge Araña

    (DAGRI Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agrarie, Alimentari Ambientali e Forestali, University of Florence, 50121 Firenze, Italy)

  • Marco Ciolli

    (Forest Ecology Laboratory, DICAM, University of Trento, 38122 Trento, Italy
    C3A—Centro Agricoltura Alimenti Ambiente, 38010 San Michele all’Adige, Italy)

Abstract

Land use changes in the Alps over the last few decades have been characterised by a significant increase in forest coverage as a result of the abandonment of marginal agricultural sites. Natural afforestation and species protection laws affected the ecosystem, and therefore the services provided by the mountain environment, including landscape structure and aesthetics, changed. This work assess the changes in the ecosystem services offered by forests since 1954 in a region of the Italian Alps. Some ES were estimated in this work with GIS, and others were taken from the literature or the authors’ previous works. Since the 1950s, forest ecosystem services such as growing stock, protection from hydro-geological hazards and carbon storage have increased. Deer and other forest species have risen in number. On the other hand, there has been a depletion of open space for priority habitats and species such as black grouse and capercaillie. Old postcards were used to understand land use change and people’s aesthetic preferences. To determine people’s preferences for the landscape, we used records of over 300,000 postcards, sold during nearly two decades. The most often chosen postcard portrayed a landscape of the 1970s with a mix of forest and open space, different from the scenario that the buyers could observe. The sales records for over 20 years of postcard business and the dates of the postcards that we obtained in this research allowed us to perform a quantitative analysis of landscape preferences. The main subject of the photo was a good predictor of the number of postcards sold, according to generalised linear models (GLM); and postcards of overly exploited landscapes, dense forest coverage or buildings were significantly less likely to be chosen. Artificially reinstating open areas will boost biodiversity and could recreate a landscape that resembles the historical agro-ecosystem without interfering with the forest’s other functions. These findings will help managers and policy makers evaluate cultural ecosystem resources in the face of changing mountain landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Clara Tattoni & Gianluca Grilli & Jorge Araña & Marco Ciolli, 2021. "The Landscape Change in the Alps—What Postcards Have to Say about Aesthetic Preference," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7426-:d:587449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7426/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7426/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Bruno Marques & Claire Freeman & Lynette Carter & Maibritt Pedersen Zari, 2020. "Sense of Place and Belonging in Developing Culturally Appropriate Therapeutic Environments: A Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & De Marco, Claudio & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2014. "Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 170-179.
    4. Gret-Regamey, Adrienne & Kytzia, Susanne, 2007. "Integrating the valuation of ecosystem services into the Input-Output economics of an Alpine region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 786-798, September.
    5. Maria Giulia Cantiani & Clemens Geitner & Christine Haida & Federica Maino & Clara Tattoni & Daniele Vettorato & Marco Ciolli, 2016. "Balancing Economic Development and Environmental Conservation for a New Governance of Alpine Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Annamaria Bianchi & Silvia Biffignandi, 2017. "Representativeness in panel surveys," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 126-143, April.
    7. Foltête, Jean-Christophe & Litot, Jean-Baptiste, 2015. "Scenic postcards as objects for spatial analysis of tourist regions," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 17-28.
    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. Bussola, Francesca & Falco, Enzo & Aukes, Ewert & Stegmaier, Peter & Sorge, Stefan & Ciolli, Marco & Gagliano, Caterina & Geneletti, Davide, 2021. "Piloting a more inclusive governance innovation strategy for forest ecosystem services management in Primiero, Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(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. Uta Schirpke & Rocco Scolozzi & Riccardo Da Re & Mauro Masiero & Davide Pellegrino & Davide Marino, 2020. "Enhancing outdoor recreation and biodiversity through payments for ecosystem services: emerging potentials from selected Natura 2000 sites in Italy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2045-2067, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Francesco Riccioli & Roberto Fratini & Claudio Fagarazzi & Mario Cozzi & Mauro Viccaro & Severino Romano & Duccio Rocchini & Salomon Espinosa Diaz & Clara Tattoni, 2020. "Mapping the Recreational Value of Coppices’ Management Systems in Tuscany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-18, September.
    4. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    5. 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).
    6. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    7. De Toni, Andrea & Vizzarri, Matteo & Di Febbraro, Mirko & Lasserre, Bruno & Noguera, Joan & Di Martino, Paolo, 2021. "Aligning Inner Peripheries with rural development in Italy: Territorial evidence to support policy contextualization," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    8. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    9. Cordier, Mateo & Pérez Agúndez, José A. & Hecq, Walter & Hamaide, Bertrand, 2014. "A guiding framework for ecosystem services monetization in ecological–economic modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 86-96.
    10. Franks, Jeremy & Frater, Poppy, 2013. "Measuring agricultural sustainability at the farm-level: A pragmatic approach," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 2(4), pages 1-19, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Li, Shicheng & Zhang, Heng & Zhou, Xuewu & Yu, Haibin & Li, Wangjun, 2020. "Enhancing protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    13. Zheng Zang, 2021. "Conceptual Model of Ecosystem Service Flows from Carbon Dioxide to Blue Carbon in Coastal Wetlands: An Empirical Study Based on Yancheng, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, April.
    14. Xianghua Zhang & Lingbo Dong & Yingli Huang & Yanli Xu & Huiyan Qin & Zhenhua Qiao, 2021. "Equilibrium Relationship between Ecosystem Service Supply and Consumption Driven by Economic Development and Ecological Restoration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, February.
    15. 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.
    16. Anna Misztal & Magdalena Kowalska & Anita Fajczak-Kowalska & Otakar Strunecky, 2021. "Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization in the Context of Macroeconomic Stabilization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Irina Iulia Năstase & Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Felix Kienast, 2019. "Landscape Preferences and Distance Decay Analysis for Mapping the Recreational Potential of an Urban Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-19, July.
    18. Kulczyk, Sylwia & Woźniak, Edyta & Derek, Marta, 2018. "Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated model of recreational ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 491-501.
    19. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    20. Zhifang Wang & Yuqing Jian & Zhibin Huang & Salman Qureshi & Kexin Cheng & Zhuhui Bai & Qingwen Zhang, 2023. "Transforming Research on Recreational Ecosystem Services into Applications and Governance," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.

    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:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7426-:d:587449. 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.