2. Methods
In the years 2012–2015, a survey was conducted among 244 students of environmental engineering who were in their 4th year of the first level course. This means that they were in their final year of studies leading to the title of professional engineer. The questionnaire was sent to the students in electronic form to be filled at a convenient time. In 2015 the survey was expanded onto a group of 30 students of civil engineering. The analysis covered all environmental engineering students and two groups of civil engineering students studying at the Faculty in the systems of full-time and extramural studies in the described period. The main goal of such an expansion was to show the differences and similarities between the students of related technical courses that included a relatively small number of classes related to environmental problems in their syllabi (
Table 1).
The questionnaire included the following information:
- -
Type of studies: major (EnvEng, CivEng), type of study—full-time (FTS)/part-time (PTS);
- -
Gender of the person surveyed: male, female;
- -
Place of residence: city (Liv-C), suburbs (Liv-S), village (Liv-V);
- -
Opinion of the person surveyed about the landscape:
- ▪
What do you think determines our perception of the landscape in urban areas? Interesting architecture (LU-arch), diversity in building types (LU-build), greenery (LU-green), new functions (LU-newf), building density (LU-dens), roads (LU-road)—multiple choices were accepted;
- ▪
What do you think determines our perception of the landscape in rural areas? Building tradition (LV-btrad), diversity in building types (LV-build), agricultural function (LV-agric), new functions (LV-newf)—multiple choices were accepted;
- ▪
Do you think that green areas are important for city dwellers? Extremely important (GA-ext), very important (GA-very), moderately important (GA-mod), not very important (GA-notver), negligible (GA-neg)—single choice questionnaire question;
- ▪
Do you consider the landscape in your area to be harmonious? Yes (PL-harm)/no (PL-nonh)—single choice questionnaire question;
The questionnaire also included three types of individual descriptions:
- -
Example of a harmonious landscape—a photograph with a description
- ▪
Location: city (LH-C), suburbs (LH-S), village (LH-V)—single choice questionnaire question;
- ▪
Character of the place: historic (LH-hist)/contemporary (LH-cont), built-up (LH-build)/undeveloped (LH-open), unique (LH-uniq)/common (LH-comm)—multiple choices were accepted;
- ▪
Mention up to five features of the selected harmonious landscape.
- -
Example of a degraded landscape—a photograph with a description
- ▪
Location: city (LD-C), suburbs (LD-S), village (LD-V); single choice questionnaire question;
- ▪
Character of the place: historical (LD-hist)/contemporary (LD-cont), built-up (LD-build)/undeveloped (LD-open), unique (LD-uniq)/common (LD-comm)—multiple choices were accepted;
- ▪
Mention up to five features of the selected degraded landscape.
- -
What do you think can be done to repair a degraded landscape to restore harmony? give up to three examples.
In relation to individual descriptions, it was recommended to take photographs of a harmonious and a degraded landscape and include them in the questionnaire. Each photo was accompanied by a simple description based on the assumptions of the survey. The geographical spectrum of the descriptions was not limited. The only initial assumption was that the descriptions had to refer to landscapes personally seen and known to the respondents. The aim was to obtain descriptions based on personal contact with the environment, excluding the possibility of relying only on the first impression, e.g., an analysis of a randomly selected photograph. It was supposed to be based on full landscape perception using all senses. In this way, a modified methodical approach was suggested in relation to the most common analyses exclusively based on impressions made by photos [
13,
14,
15,
37], which are merely a partial reflection of the landscape. This requirement was intended to eliminate the subjectivism typical of the standard procedure, which resulted from the photographer’s technical proficiency or the need to pre-select the photographs.
The results of the research were statistically analyzed using the software StatSoft Statistica 13.1 (TIBCO, 3307 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, USA). The basic statistics were shown for the whole population and samples were divided into categories using the following factors as independent variables:
- -
Year of survey;
- -
Gender of the people surveyed;
- -
Place of residence of the people surveyed;
- -
Subject and type of study;
And as dependent variables:
- -
Perception of the landscape of their place of residence;
- -
Selection of the significance of the size of the place for the quality of life;
- -
Selection of an optimum place to live;
- -
Opinions of the person surveyed regarding the landscape;
- -
Individual descriptions of harmonious and degraded landscapes.
The correlations between the factors were calculated with the significance threshold set at p < 0.01. The following analyses were made both for EnvEng and CivEng students combined, as well as for these two groups separately.
Moreover, data regarding the quality assessment of harmonious and degraded landscapes by male and female students were analyzed, including their place of residence, and compared with the most common descriptions for both types of landscapes. The analysis was performed using cluster analysis (MCA), because this method makes it possible to assign objects to individual classes (clusters) that contain objects that are the most similar to each other [
8]. Before this type of analysis no assumptions are made about the distribution of variables, and the number of classes to which the objects belong is not known a priori. The most popular grouping methods include hierarchical methods, which are also best developed in terms of methodology. These methods make it possible to obtain a complete hierarchy of clusters characterized by a monotonically increasing similarity factor. In hierarchical methods, agglomeration procedures (iterative ones, characterized by pre-assumed metrics, for example: nearest neighborhood, furthest neighborhood, median, group average, center of gravity) and division procedures can be used to build clusters. Cluster analysis makes it possible to graphically present results in the form of a dendrogram—a connection tree [
38,
39] and a map grouping the objects and characteristics of a particular phenomenon. This approach makes it possible to interpret the spatial relations between the clusters and to create a classification of landscape characteristics [
40,
41].
For the purpose of this study, based on the map grouping the objects and on the characteristics, a classification of the assessment of harmonious and degraded landscapes and possible remedial actions was created depending on the place of residence of the men and women participating in the study. The following analyses were made both for EnvEng and CivEng students combined, as well as and for these two groups separately. After the strength of connections between the objects and characteristics was determined, a division into five classes (the harmonious landscape and the degraded landscape) or six classes (possibilities of repairs) was obtained, based on the scale presented in
Table 2. In each case, Class I has the smallest strength of connections and this strength increases with the number of the class.
4. Discussion
The European Landscape Convention stipulates that individual countries will implement instruments into the education system, also in higher education, to educate specialists in the field of landscape protection. The aim is to identify landscapes and characterize them, and to indicate changes and mechanisms of anthropogenic impact on them, as well as estimating the value of individual landscapes [
10]. At present, the students of environmental engineering and civil engineering at the University are not sufficiently taught about landscape issues (
Table 1). Even in the relatively large group of natural sciences included in the syllabus of environmental engineering there is no reference to this topic.
As part of their research, the students of environmental engineering and civil engineering defined positive landscape characteristics using the standard concepts of environmental protection. This approach to the phenomena occurring in the environment is based on biological and ecological education and is shaped by the media and activities of local environmental organizations. Especially the latter factor is important for the present young generation in Poland, which is socially active. The vast majority of characteristics of the harmonious landscape, such as naturalness, harmony, greenery, cleanliness, order and aesthetics, indicate a simple approach to this problem. The characteristics that could suggest the impact of technical knowledge acquired during technical studies on landscape perception, such as architecture, colors, functionality, openness, dynamism, communication, infrastructure, security, and building homogeneity, were much less frequently mentioned. In this case, the analysis of the dendrograms indicates that in their descriptions the respondents combined naturalness and harmony, and in another group order and aesthetics were combined with greenery. The assessment of the degraded landscape also turned out to be based on the standard approach to this issue and was characterized by frequent use of the terms disorder, lack of greenery, pollution and degradation. It is surprising that the students of technical sciences, educated in construction and installation, ranked highly in their descriptions anthropogenic impact and the presence of buildings as negative landscape characteristics. Some of the respondents tried to specify in a more advanced way negative landscape characteristics by describing the effects and possible causes of the existing situation, including: neglect, chaos, devastation of buildings, colors, litter, unification, lack of pavements, insufficient greenery, artificiality, durability of changes, lack of water and lack of animals. The vocabulary used by the students to describe landscape phenomena could be regarded as typical and even described in the literature as expected. Leibenath and Otto [
43] indicated that in professional discussions traditional landscape terms were used, such as: beauty, recreation, cohesion, cleanliness, conservation, nature and rural areas, which, according to the authors, were in contrast with: city, pollution, factory, highway, devastation, fragmentation and noise. It was also noted that the students tended to mention neatness, aesthetics, the presence of trees and naturalness as characteristics of a well-shaped landscape [
15].
In the descriptions of methods that could be used to improve the situations regarded by the respondents as faulty, the prevalent opinion was that greenery and purification were the best activities regardless of the present condition of the degraded areas. Subsequent answers seem to be a combination of information obtained during education, since concepts such as reconstruction, reclamation, management, renovation, revitalization, ordering or naturalization are often used in environmental engineering and in civil engineering. An interesting point to be considered is that the students relatively rarely mentioned the problem of legal regulations and principles of social life illustrated by such concepts as restrictions, monitoring, awareness, waste management, emission reduction and care for greenery. Only eight people used the phrase "lack of possibilities", previously mentioning currently operating large industrial plants as degraded areas. It can be clearly seen that by indicating the possibility of introducing changes, based on the agglomeration procedure used to classify activities, the respondents pointed to cleansing and management as joint remedial actions. Leibenath and Otto [
43] noted that in terms of cultural landscapes, frequently used phrases are: development, reclamation, and spatial management. According to the authors, in this case individual opinions of professionals in their discussion of landscape phenomena depend on crucial regional or local problems that need to be solved—including the problem of the impact of wind turbines and opencast mines on the landscape. Landscape degradation and the need to protect it and (if needed) reclaim it are more and more often breaking into people’s mentality. Nevertheless, many of them still associate these elements with soil, agricultural production and problems with the chemical state of the environment. This applies especially to rural communities living off agricultural production [
44].
The abovementioned comparisons show that the division into a well-shaped natural landscape and a malformed anthropogenic landscape is deeply rooted in the perception of the world of the technical science students who participated in the survey.
However, the analysis of this information leads to the conclusion that the civil engineering students, also educated in architecture, perceived shaped greenery as more important than did the environmental engineering students—technologists and installers. The importance of the vegetation in an area as a decisive factor determining the positive perception of its landscape was confirmed by Wang et al. [
18] and Konkoly-Gyuró [
12]. In particular, the presence of forests and large urban parks is described as an important landscape-forming factor that is perceived visually as a definitely positive element [
18]. However, some authors point out that people may have pre-coded expectations of landscapes. Cities are expected to have cultural landscapes with historical traditions, whereas the countryside is expected to have agricultural and natural landscapes that fulfill economic, recreational and aesthetic functions [
35,
45]. Some people, recognizing the great importance of greenery (55.4–68.2% of respondents), identify strongly with their place on earth as well—despite the disadvantages of greenery [
46]. The paradigm about the high quality of natural landscapes, consistent with the idea of ecology, is typical of observers with a higher education [
16]. However, the literature describes the differences in the description of spatial reality by the architecture students and the civil engineering students that result from the different artistic foundations of the syllabi [
5]. It was also noted that there are differences between the students of natural, social, agricultural and technical sciences who prefer nature—the students of natural, forest and agricultural sciences—or those who prefer shaped landscapes—the students of economics, history, pedagogy, psychology, architecture, gardening and landscape architecture [
15]. Similar differences were found between the surveyed students of civil engineering and environmental engineering.
These results, based on the students’ opinions, poorly correspond with the undoubtedly true thesis that engineering and technical activities may sometimes have a destructive impact on the landscape but sometimes they may also shape its beauty. In only a few questionnaires all types of construction objects were mentioned (including historical and modern buildings as well as bridges, viaducts and windmills) as interesting, beautiful, enriching the landscape or introducing dynamism. Engineering structures, especially industrial buildings and roads, were clearly regarded as a negative anthropogenic impact on the landscape. In the literature, it is possible to find opinions that buildings are an element that especially attracts the attention of the less-advanced landscape observers [
29]. However, this does not mean that experts regard them as a minor element. Area development was mentioned in the studies of Konkoly-Gyuró [
12] as the second most important landscape-forming factor, which is in contrast to this study. The role of buildings was more often associated with the tradition of past centuries—landmarks and cultural heritage. However, it should be noted that the cited surveys were conducted near the French–German-border in a different age and professional group—experts over 40 years of age. Moreover, the existence of buildings was not clearly assessed in this case, but it was only noted that it made an important contribution to the perception of the landscape. Some engineering structures, for example wind turbines, arouse mixed feelings in communities, but are often the subject mentioned in discussions about the landscape [
20,
43]. Overhead transmission grids, masts and wastelands are also regarded as negative elements [
47]. Based on the results of the students’ assessments (positive and negative) presented in this paper, it can be stated that engineering structures were also assessed as an important element, although not always having a positive impact on landscapes.
Other analyses also indicated that students had problems with advanced landscape perception, including the aesthetics of the environment [
21,
29]. They appear especially in assessments of mixed landscapes, which connect the natural environment with buildings [
18,
48]. Sometimes, it is noted that the positive perception of the landscape is connected with the presence of spectacular forms that make it more dynamic and interesting. The common landscape with little variation is usually perceived as less attractive [
24]. The sense of beauty as such cannot be learned [
27]. However, according to the authors, it is possible to show the students different aspects of the landscape, based on various theories, analyses and observations. In particular, a practical approach to education, aimed at showing real examples, discussions and solutions to problems, can improve the students’ perception of the landscape [
31].
About 59.1% of the surveyed students recognized architecture, and especially unique architecture in terms of appearance and history, as an important element improving the urban landscape. About 44.5% indicated roads as another one of the decisive elements shaping the landscape in cities. Complex elements in terms of perception, such as the density of buildings, new functions of areas and diversity in building types, were mentioned much less frequently. Buildings were also considered to be an important element of the rural landscape (59.1%), which is confirmed by the results obtained in 14 European countries [
36]. Konkoly-Gyuró [
12] obtained similar results from 13% of her respondents. In this case, the surveyed experts also mentioned the condition of this type of architecture, and 25% of them said that this was a very important landscape-forming element. The presence of historical monuments, towers and village buildings was also noticed as an important landscape element by inhabitants of villages near Warsaw [
49] and a few municipalities in Lombardy region, Italy [
50]. In the aspects discussed, the answers given by the civil engineering students were different from the answers given by the environmental engineering students. The former much more often regarded architectural elements as important for the urban landscape (76.7% vs. 57.0%, respectively). Garip and Garip [
5] described the differences in the reception of the architecture of modern buildings by the students of architecture and civil engineering. Their studies showed that although in general the representatives of these disciplines often used similar terms, it was possible to notice that the architects focused on the aesthetics of objects and the civil engineers on structural complexity. The selection of such a hierarchy of rural landscape components with the agricultural function of the area as a decisive element in perception is present in the literature describing European countries [
35,
36]. The mosaic layout of fields, the domination of agricultural fields, green linear patterns and historical buildings are the main elements. This is the standard perception of the countryside, which is typical of farmers and tourists who want contact with the traditional countryside [
13,
14,
37,
51,
52]. Sayadi et al. [
53] also stated that people aged 18–25 and people with a higher education had more appreciation for the agricultural landscape. In the literature there is mention of a good perception of meadows and pastures [
37,
50,
51], as well as landscapes where agricultural areas are mixed with forests and tree lines [
54], lakes and even urban areas [
13]. In view of the respondents’ place of residence—25.9% lived in rural areas and next 24.9% in small cities—with the presence of 40.4% of agricultural land in the total area of the region [
42], this approach was expected. It should also be noted that people tend to get used to familiar landscapes to such an extent that they cease to respond to their dynamics and variability [
51]. A positive human–landscape interaction, effecting the creation of harmonious and pretty complex landscapes, can be a key factor to acceptance of space by the locals and people from outside the rural areas [
51,
52]. The effect of promoting harmonious agricultural landscapes and nature among urban population shows an increasing tendency [
50].
The students’ perception of the landscape is most frequently characterized by relatively little experience, since the school education system and the system of values learned at home usually ignore this aspect. The research shows that respondents rather point to the relatively simple biological features of ecosystems, showing a clear difficulty in moving to the much more complex concepts of landscape ecology. To change this, it is necessary to redefine the paradigm of environmental education and sciences, with a clear indication of the need for an interdisciplinary approach [
55]. Moreover, Poland as a Central European country is characterized by the prevalence of landscape transformations that disturb the current perception of the environment. Since the students do not usually have a broad comparative spectrum, most of them perceive the landscape as shaped properly. This can be seen in the answers given by the respondents, as 70% of them say that the landscape in their place of residence is harmonious. In this aspect of the analysis, 68.4% of the environmental engineering students and 76.7% of the civil engineering students gave a positive answer. Such a high percentage of positive responses was confirmed by literature data showing the respondents’ good approach to their “small homelands”, regardless of the individual construction of the landscape [
46].
Based on the data obtained in this study, it can be concluded that the ability of the environmental engineering and civil engineering students for independent advanced interpretation of the landscape was based on standard patterns, which is also confirmed in the literature [
16]. The reasons for this state of affairs could be found in school education, which is based on classroom education with minimum practical contact between the pupils and nature. Many authors have indicated that practical elements play the key role in educating people about the environment [
22,
23,
27,
56,
57,
58]. Creativity is equally important, because it provides the ability to make complex assessments and to have a flexible approach to specific problems [
59]. By adopting different methods for teaching both pupils and students, it is possible to change their attitude to acquiring knowledge as well as solving real landscape problems [
24]. Nevertheless, many initial activities are necessary to prepare pupils [
23] and students [
32] for more active work. A related method is used at the University during project classes in the field of environmental engineering and civil engineering. Unfortunately, this is not a continuation of the previous methods used in primary and secondary schools. For this reason, this is the first time most of the students have worked in teams on complex problems. The University’s experience also indicates that the key motivating factors for the students are their expectations of the labor market, which stimulate them to focus in particular on the aspects important for prospective employers.
The truth of the assumption that the progress of students working in a new, stimulating system should be connected with the importance of particular subjects in the whole syllabus was confirmed by other analyses [
32]. However, this results in narrowing the scope of education in a particular field [
59]. Muller and Flohr [
9] suggested adding global aspects to education about shaping the environment during Engineer’s and Master’s studies in architecture, landscape architecture and spatial planning. At the same time, they suggested confronting university education with the external environment. This was done as voluntary public presentations, also for professional planners and designers. They also pointed out that the students showed little interest in the suggestion, although the ones who made the presentations achieved much better results than the other students. The analysis of the student seminars at the University shows that the student’s attitudes are very similar. However, it is necessary to confront the skills that the students acquired during the course with real-life situations to provide proper landscape education [
59]. Undoubtedly, work should be continued on this element of education.