Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Survey Design
2.1.1. Selection of Photographs
2.1.2. Selection of Attributes
2.1.3. Measures of Socio-Demographic Profile
2.2. Data
2.3. Statistical Methods
3. Results
3.1. Evaluating Measures of Key Visual Concepts
Photograph | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Means, Scale 1, ..., 5 | |||||||||||
Pleasantness | 4.41 | 4.29 | 4.20 | 4.26 | 4.31 | 4.12 | 3.81 | 3.96 | 3.63 | 3.89 | |
Species richness | 3.39 | 3.18 | 3.47 | 3.06 | 3.88 | 3.30 | 3.88 | 3.06 | 3.21 | 3.43 | |
Taken care of | 4.15 | 4.29 | 3.93 | 4.42 | 3.02 | 4.22 | 2.34 | 4.17 | 3.37 | 3.87 | |
Consistency | 3.77 | 3.92 | 3.63 | 3.87 | 3.47 | 3.62 | 3.08 | 3.47 | 3.26 | 3.30 | |
Harmony | 4.07 | 4.00 | 3.81 | 3.95 | 3.89 | 3.56 | 3.27 | 3.31 | 3.33 | 3.39 | |
Involve history | 3.50 | 3.30 | 3.55 | 3.32 | 3.74 | 3.18 | 3.68 | 3.02 | 3.53 | 3.37 | |
Openness | 3.97 | 4.24 | 3.76 | 3.78 | 3.66 | 3.68 | 3.77 | 3.83 | 3.73 | 3.82 | |
Originality | 2.93 | 2.75 | 2.93 | 2.85 | 3.09 | 2.68 | 2.92 | 2.73 | 2.76 | 2.79 | |
Diversity | 3.58 | 3.20 | 3.55 | 3.34 | 3.80 | 3.31 | 3.48 | 3.27 | 3.04 | 3.40 | |
Naturalness | 2.63 | 2.38 | 2.65 | 2.16 | 3.70 | 2.38 | 3.84 | 2.22 | 2.70 | 2.41 | |
Stability | 2.99 | 2.92 | 3.01 | 3.02 | 3.09 | 2.86 | 2.99 | 2.84 | 2.89 | 2.84 |
Pleasantness | Taken Care of | Consistency | Harmony | Involve History | Openness | Originality | Diversity | Naturalness | Stability | Species Richness | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pleasantness | 1 | ||||||||||
Taken care of | 0.488 ** | 1 | |||||||||
Consistency | 0.451 ** | 0.459 ** | 1 | ||||||||
Harmony | 0.645 ** | 0.440 ** | 0.534 ** | 1 | |||||||
Involve history | 0.226 ** | −0.054 ** | 0.137 ** | 0.193 ** | 1 | ||||||
Openness | 0.428 ** | 0.312 ** | 0.456 ** | 0.437 ** | 0.245 ** | 1 | |||||
Originality | 0.239 ** | 0.058 ** | 0.166 ** | 0.214 ** | 0.241 ** | 0.171 ** | 1 | ||||
Diversity | 0.450 ** | 0.165 ** | 0.252 ** | 0.430 ** | 0.306 ** | 0.277 ** | 0.337 ** | 1 | |||
Naturalness | 0.069 ** | −0.356 ** | −0.105 ** | 0.060 ** | 0.179 ** | −0.048 ** | 0.192 ** | 0.253 ** | 1 | ||
Stability | 0.165 ** | 0.079 ** | 0.128 ** | 0.216 ** | 0.063 ** | 0.097 ** | 0.059 ** | 0.173 ** | 0.269 ** | 1 | |
Species richness | 0.310 ** | −0.012 | 0.144 ** | 0.286 ** | 0.308 ** | 0.193 ** | 0.264 ** | 0.502 ** | 0.388 ** | 0.208 ** | 1 |
3.2. Modelling Landscape Evaluations
Fixed Effects | Classes | “Pleasantness” Scale | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Estimated Means | Type 3 Tests | ||||
Estimate | Standard Error | F-Value | p-Value | ||
Cattle | No | 4.118 | 0.131 | 15.18 | <0.0001 |
Yes | 4.221 | 0.133 | |||
Bushes | No | 4.091 | 0.129 | 13.44 | 0.0002 |
Yes | 4.248 | 0.136 | |||
Disturbance | No | 4.225 | 0.129 | 6.67 | 0.0002 |
Yes | 4.114 | 0.136 | |||
Photograph type | Black and white | 4.218 | 0.132 | 5.56 | 0.0187 |
Colour | 4.121 | 0.133 | |||
Season | Late summer | 4.149 | 0.133 | 3.85 | 0.0498 |
Mid-summer | 4.191 | 0.113 | |||
Interaction between Season and Photograph type | Late summer B & W | 4.268 | 0.134 | 71.89 | <0.0001 |
Mid-summer B & W | 4.169 | 0.134 | |||
Late summer Col. | 4.030 | 0.132 | |||
Mid-summer Col. | 4.213 | 0.135 | |||
Gender | male | 4.063 | 0.132 | 25.55 | <0.0001 |
female | 4.276 | 0.133 | |||
Age | 13–30 | 4.126 | 0.142 | 2.78 | 0.0400 |
30–34 | 4.111 | 0.141 | |||
41–55 | 4.171 | 0.134 | |||
55–65 | 4.271 | 0.134 | |||
Education | Elementary school | 4.209 | 0.146 | 3.0 | 0.0178 |
Vocational school | 4.229 | 0.135 | |||
Upper secondary school | 4.043 | 0.141 | |||
College | 4.255 | 0.139 | |||
University | 4.113 | 0.138 | |||
Professional status | Blue collar | 4.222 | 0.136 | 2.34 | 0.0724 |
White collar | 4.124 | 0.139 | |||
Entrepreneur, manager | 4.230 | 0.137 | |||
Other | 4.103 | 0.135 | |||
Region in Finland | Southern | 4.080 | 0.114 | 2.05 | 0.0698 |
Eastern | 4.283 | 0.125 | |||
Middle | 4.045 | 0.136 | |||
Western | 4.103 | 0.115 | |||
Northern | 4.116 | 0.126 | |||
Other (Åland) | 4.391 | 0.427 | |||
Random effects | Estimate | Standard Error | z-value | p-value | |
Observation | 0.298 | 0.018 | 16.81 | <0.0001 | |
Site | 0.055 | 0.039 | 1.40 | 0.081 | |
Residual | 0.552 | 0.009 | 59.96 | <0.0001 | |
N | 800/8000 | ||||
Pseudo R2 | 0.11 |
Taken Care of | Consistency | Harmony | Involve History | Openness | Originality | Diversity | Naturalness | Stability | Species Richness | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Significant variables and their direction in linear mixed models for each evaluative scale; +/− Positive or negative effect; * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01 | ||||||||||
Fixed effects | ||||||||||
Grain | + *** | − *** | − *** | − *** | − *** | |||||
Cattle | − *** | − ** | − *** | − ** | ||||||
Bales | + *** | + *** | − *** | − *** | − *** | − *** | − *** | − *** | ||
Farm houses | −* | − *** | − *** | |||||||
Bushes | + *** | − *** | + *** | + *** | − *** | + ** | ||||
Disturbances | − *** | − *** | − *** | − *** | ||||||
Black and white | + ** | + *** | + *** | + * | + ** | + *** | ||||
Season | + *** | + *** | − *** | + *** | + ** | − *** | − * | − *** | ||
Random effects | ||||||||||
Observation | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
Site | * | * | * | * | * | * | ||||
Residual | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
Pseudo R2 | 0.19 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.18 |
N | 800/8000 | 800/8000 | 800/8000 | 800/8000 | 800/8000 | 800/8000 | 800/8000 | 800/8000 | 800/8000 | 800/8000 |
Photo Number | Season | Pleasantness, Mean BW Colour | t-Test p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Late summer | 4.48 | 4.34 | 0.012 |
2 | Mid-summer | 4.19 | 4.40 | 0.000 |
3 | Late summer | 4.25 | 4.15 | 0.096 |
4 | Mid-summer | 4.31 | 4.20 | 0.061 |
5 | Late summer | 4.46 | 4.16 | 0.000 |
6 | Mid-summer | 4.11 | 4.12 | 0.935 |
7 | Late summer | 4.08 | 3.55 | 0.000 |
8 | Mid-summer | 3.90 | 4.03 | 0.065 |
9 | Late summer | 3.70 | 3.55 | 0.051 |
10 | Mid-summer | 3.92 | 3.87 | 0.476 |
All | 4.14 | 4.04 | 0.000 |
Type 3 Tests of Fixed Effects | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
F-Test p-Value | |||||
Photograph | Photograph Type (BW/C) | Interaction between Photograph and Photograph Type (BW/C) | BW Sig. Higher (p < 0.1) Photograph Number | C Sig. Higher (p < 0.1) Photograph Number | |
Taken care of | <0.0001 | 0.460 | <0.0001 | 3, 5, 7 | 1, 2 |
Consistency | <0.0001 | 0.199 | <0.0001 | 7, 9 | 1, 2 |
Harmony | <0.0001 | 0.013 | <0.0001 | 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 | 2, 7 |
Involve history | <0.0001 | 0.001 | 0.039 | 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 | |
Openness | <0.0001 | 0.113 | 0.023 | 3, 5, 7 | |
Originality | <0.0001 | 0.008 | 0.024 | 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 | |
Diversity | <0.0001 | 0.020 | <0.0001 | 1, 7 | |
Naturalness | <0.0001 | 0.033 | <0.0001 | 1, 7, 9 | |
Stability | <0.0001 | 0.117 | 0.263 | 7 | |
Species richness | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.012 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 |
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflict of Interest
References
- Ruiz, J.; Domon, G. Relationships between rural inhabitants and their landscapes in areas of intensive agricultural use: A case study in Quebec (Canada). J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 590–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soini, K.; Vaarala, H.; Pouta, E. Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural-urban interface. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaljonen, M. Co-construction of agency and environmental management. The case of agri-environmental policy implementation at Finnish farms. J. Rural Stud. 2006, 22, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soini, K.; Aakkula, J. Framing the biodiversity of agricultural landscape: The essence of local conceptions and constructions. Land Use Policy 2007, 24, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Council of Europe. The European Landscape Convention; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Council of Europe. Faro Convention on Value of Cultural Heritage on Society; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rosley, M.S.F.; Lamit, H.; Rahman, S.R.A. Perceiving the aesthetic value of the rural landscape through valid indicators. Proced.—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 85, 318–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fry, G.; Tveit, M.S.; Ode, Å.; Velarde, M.D. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 933–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Jagt, A.; Craig, T.; Anable, J.; Brewer, M.J.; Pearson, D.G. Unearthing the picturesque: The validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 124, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tveit, M.S.; Ode, Å.; Fry, G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res. 2006, 31, 229–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sevenant, M.; Antrop, M. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2889–2899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sevenant, M.; Antrop, M. The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 827–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tress, B.; Tress, G. Capitalizing on multiplicity: A transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 57, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coeterier, J.F. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1996, 34, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, W.C.; Anderson, O.M.; Lovell, S.T. Agricultural buffers at the rural-urban fringe: An examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the Midwestern United States. Landsc Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tempesta, T. The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bujis, A.E.; Pedroli, B.; Luginbühl, Y. From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: Changing social perceptions of the European landscape. Landsc. Ecol. 2006, 21, 375–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogge, E.; Nevens, F.; Gulinck, H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 82, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tveit, M.S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; A comparison between groups. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2882–2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ode Sang, Å.; Tveit, M.S. Perceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafer, J.E.L.; Brush, R.O. How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landsc. Plan. 1977, 4, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, T.C.; Vining, J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In Behaviour and the Natural Environment; Altman, I., Wohwill, J.F., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 39–83. [Google Scholar]
- Scott, M.J.; Canter, D.V. Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17, 263–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karjalainen, E.; Komulainen, M. Field afforestation preferences: A case study in northeastern Finland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 43, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, T.C.; Meitner, M.M. Representational validity of landscape visualizations: The effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shuttleworth, S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. J. Environ. Manag. 1980, 11, 61–76. [Google Scholar]
- Rose, G. Visual methodologies. In An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2007; p. 301. [Google Scholar]
- Nassauer, J.I. Framing the landscape in photographic simulation. J Environ. Manag. 1983, 16, 4. [Google Scholar]
- Mollie-Stefulesco, C.; Quesney, D. Séquences paysages. In Revue de L’observatoire Photographique du Paysage; Hazan, Ed.; Ministère de l’environnement: Paris, France, 1997; p. 112. [Google Scholar]
- Trent, R.B.; Neumann, E.; Kvashny, A. Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1987, 14, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia Pérez, J.D. Ascertaining landscape perceptions and preferences with pair-wise photographs: Planning rural tourism in Extremadura, Spain. Landsc. Res. 2002, 27, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hetherington, J.; Daniel, T.C.; Brown, T.C. Is motion more important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environmental research. J. Environ. Psychol. 1993, 13, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wherrett, J.R. Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landsc. Res. 2000, 25, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, M. Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment—An empirical study from Germany. Landsc Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heikkilä, T.; Hietala-Koivu, R. Maatalousmaiseman visuaalinen seuranta. In Maatalouden Ympäristötuen Merkitys Luonnon Monimuotoisuudelle ja Maisemalle: Mytvas-Seurantatutkimus 2000–2003; In Series Suomen ympäristö No. 709; Kuussaari, M., Tiainen, J, Helenius, J., Hietala-Koivu, R., Heliölä, J., Eds.; Edita: Helsinki, Finland, 2004; p. 212. [Google Scholar]
- Ode, Å.; Tveit, M.S.; Fry, G. Capturing landscapes visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landsc. Res. 2008, 33, 89–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howley, P. Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 72, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howley, P.; Hynes, S.; Donoghue, C.O. Countryside preferences: Exploring individuals’ willingness to pay for the conservation of the traditional farm landscape. Landsc. Res. 2012, 37, 703–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dramstad, W.E.; Tveit, M.S.; Fjellstad, W.J.; Fry, G.L.A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benjamin, K.; Bouchard, A.; Domon, G. Abandoned farmlands as components of rural landscapes: An analysis of perceptions and representations. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 228–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strumse, E.; Hauge, L. Landscape protection evaluations and visual preferences for western Norwegian agrarian landscapes. Norsk Geogr. Tidsskr. 1998, 52, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arriaza, M.; Cañas-Ortega, J.F.; Cañas-Madueño, J.A.; Ruiz-Aviles, P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rechtman, O. Visual perception of agricultural cultivated landscapes: Key components as predictors for landscape preferences. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 273–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayadi, S.; Gonzalez, M.; Calatrava-Requena, J. Public preferences for landscape features: The case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rambolinaza, M.; Dachary-Bernard, J. Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grammatikopoulou, I.; Pouta, E.; Salmiovirta, M.; Soini, K. Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland. J. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, D. Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: Combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 58, 467–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Berkel, D.B.; Verburg, P.H. Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 37, (Part A). 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howley, P.; Donoghue, C.O.; Hynes, S. Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hynes, S.; Campbell, D. Estimating the welfare of agricultural landscape change in Ireland: A choice experiment approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2011, 54, 1019–1039. [Google Scholar]
- Arnberger, A.; Eder, R. Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: An image-based latent class approach. Landsc. Res. 2011, 36, 19–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snider, J.G.; Osgood, C.E. Semantic Differential Technique: A Sourcebook; Chicago: Aldine, TX, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Múgica, M.; de Lucio, J.V. The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences. A case study at Doñana National Park (Spain). J. Environ. Manag. 1996, 47, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaltenborn, B.P.; Bjerke, T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franco, D.; Franco, D.; Mannino, I.; Zanetto, G. The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: The role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 62, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ives, C.D.; Kendal, D. Values and attitudes of the urban public towards peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.L. Local perceptions and values for a Midwestern river corridor. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 546, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Crow, T.; Brown, T.; de Young, R. The Riverside and Berwyn experience: Contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscape, and their effects on people. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 282–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tahvanainen, L.; Tyrväinen, L.; Ihalainen, M.; Vuorela, N.; Kolehmainen, O. Forest management and public perceptions—Visual versus verbal information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 53, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tahvanainen, L.; Tyrväinen, L. Model for predicting the scenic value of rural landscape: A preliminary study of landscape preferences in North Carelia. Scand. J. For. Res. 1998, 13, 379–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Limón, J.; de Lucío, J.V. Changes in use and landscape preferences on the agricultural-livestock landscapes of the central Iberian Peninsula (Madrid, Spain). Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 44, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brush, R.; Chenoweth, R.E.; Barman, T. Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 47, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taloustutkimus. Internet Panel. Available online: http://www.taloustutkimus.fi/in-english/products_services/internet_panel/ (accessed on 28 November 2013).
- Statistics Finland. Available online: http:// www.stat.fi, 2011 (accessed on 28 November 2013).
- Littell, R.C.; Milliken, G.A.; Stroup, W.W.; Wolfinger, R.D.; Schabenberger, O. SAS® for Mixed Models, 2nd ed.; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Burton, R.J.F. Seeing through the “good farmer’s” eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of “productivist” behaviour. Sociol. Rural. 2004, 44, 195–216. [Google Scholar]
- Soini, K. Beyond the Ecological Hot Spots: Understanding Local Residents’ Perceptions of Biodiversity of Agricultural Landscapes. Ph.D. Thesis, Turun Yliopisto, Turku, Finland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Pouta, E.; Grammatikopoulou, I.; Hurme, T.; Soini, K.; Uusitalo, M. Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions. Land 2014, 3, 598-616. https://doi.org/10.3390/land3030598
Pouta E, Grammatikopoulou I, Hurme T, Soini K, Uusitalo M. Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions. Land. 2014; 3(3):598-616. https://doi.org/10.3390/land3030598
Chicago/Turabian StylePouta, Eija, Ioanna Grammatikopoulou, Timo Hurme, Katriina Soini, and Marja Uusitalo. 2014. "Assessing the Quality of Agricultural Landscape Change with Multiple Dimensions" Land 3, no. 3: 598-616. https://doi.org/10.3390/land3030598