Landscape preference of different stakeholders in highly intensive farming agricultural landscape.

doi:10.13287/j.1001-9332.201808.015

Abstract

Abstract: Intensive agriculture is the way for production and management in modern agriculture, which increases the yield per unit area of farmland, brings a series of environmental and ecological problems, and limits the sustainability of agriculture. Landscape preference focuses on different stakeholders’ preferences for landscape, reflects the influences of human’s subjective feelings and behaviors on landscape. Based on the agricultural landscape of Fengqiu County in Henan Province, we investigated the characteristics of the landscape elements which stakeholders preferred and analyzed the reasons using the questionnaire survey and other related methods. We proposed several suggestions for future development of the agricultural landscape in study area. The results showed that stakeholders preferred the landscape element which is simple and easy to manage, and emphasized the production and economic functions of agricultural landscape. Experts and local environmentalists preferred the landscape elements with multiple functions and benefits, as well as complex landscape configurations with high heterogeneity, with the aim to develop the multifunctional agricultural landscape. Factors such as education level, professional background and types of intervie-wees had obvious influences on the landscape preference of stakeholders. The decision-making beha-vior of government, the degree of economic compensation, and the technological support of eco-agriculture would be the important factors determining the possible development of landscape structure and function in the future.

TANG Qian, FENG Shu, LIANG Guo-fu, DING Sheng-yan. Landscape preference of different stakeholders in highly intensive farming agricultural landscape.[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, 29(8): 2633-2640.

References

[1] Howley P, Yadav L, Hynes S, et al. Contrasting the attitudes of farmers and the general public regarding the ‘multifunctional’ role of the agricultural sector. Land Use Policy, 2014, 38: 248-256
[2] Hudson L, Newbold T, Contu S, et al. The PREDICTS database: A global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts. Ecology and Evolution, 2014, 24: 4701-4735
[3] Qi T (齐童), Wang Y-J (王亚娟), Wang W-H (王卫华). A review on visual landscape study in foreign countries. Progress in Geography (地理科学进展), 2013, 32(6): 975-983 (in Chinese)
[4] Yamashita S. Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: Use of Photo-Projective Method to compare child and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japanese river environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2002, 62: 3-17
[5] Silvano R, Udvardy S, Ceroni M, et al. An ecological integrity assessment of a Brazilian Atlantic Forest watershed based on surveys of stream health and local far-mers’ perceptions: Implications for management. Ecological Economics, 2005, 53: 369-385
[6] Svobodova K, Sklenicka P, Molnarova K, et al. Visual preferences for physical attributes of mining and post-mining landscapes with respect to the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. Ecological Engineering, 2012, 43: 34-44
[7] Valbuena D, Verburg P, Veldkamp A, et al. Effects of farmer’ decisions on the landscape structure of a Dutch rural region: An agent-based approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2010, 97: 98-110
[8] Fairweather J, Hunt L. Can farmers map their farm system? Causal mapping and the sustainability of sheep/beef farms in New Zealand. Agriculture and Human Values, 2011, 28: 55-66
[9] Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbaro F, et al. Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments: Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, 2012, 18: 421-433
[10] Pinto-Correia T, Barroso F, Surová D, et al. The fuzziness of Montado landscapes: Progress in assessing user preferences through photo-based surveys. Agroforest Systems, 2011, 82: 209-224
[11] Pfeifer C, Sonneveld M, Stoorvogel J. Farmers’ contribution to landscape services in the Netherlands under different rural development scenarios. Journal of Environmental Management, 2012, 111: 96-105
[12] Klein L, Hendrix W, Lohr V, et al. Linking ecology and aesthetics in sustainable agricultural landscapes: Lessons from the Palouse region of Washington, U.S.A. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2015, 134: 195-209
[13] Kvakkestad V, Rørstad P, Vatn A. Norwegian farmers’ perspectives on agriculture and agricultural payments: Between productivism and cultural landscapes. Land Use Policy, 2015, 42: 83-92
[14] Arriaza J. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004, 15: 115-125
[15] Ho CH, Sasidharan V, Elmendorf W, et al. Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation, and perceived benefits. Journal of Leisure Research, 2005, 37: 281-306
[16] Liu Y-Y (刘媛媛), Zhuo J-M (卓金梅), Zhang C-Z (张朝枝). The influence of cultural difference on tou-rists’ landscape preference. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology (Social Sciences) (中南林业科技大学学报:社会科学版), 2012, 6(2): 12-16 (in Chinese)
[17] Yin F (殷菲), Bai Z-Y (柏智勇), He H-C (何洪城). A research into visitors’ landscape preference upon wetland plant community: The case of Yanghu Wetland Park. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology (Social Sciences) (中南林业科技大学学报:社会科学版), 2013, 7(2): 37-41 (in Chinese)
[18] Guo E-H (郭二辉), Yang X-T (杨喜田), Chen L-D (陈利顶). Research of resident’s perceptions to ecological functions of riparian buffers and their preferences for river landscape. Chinese Landscape Architecture (中国园林), 2017(1): 95-99 (in Chinese)
[19] Wang Z-F (王志芳), Zhao Y (赵妍), Hou J-L (侯金伶), et al. Guidelines for designing herbaceous plants in urban parks based on landscape preference research. Chinese Landscape Architecture (中国园林), 2017(9): 33-39 (in Chinese)
[20] Zhang X-T (张晓彤), Li L-T (李良涛), Wang X-J (王晓军), et al. Agricultural landscape preferential model from subjective preference and spatial landscape index: A case study of the characteristics of 11 agricultural landscape partitions in Beijing. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture (中国生态农业学报), 2010, 18(1): 180-184 (in Chinese)
[21] Chang X (常笑), Liu L-M (刘黎明), Liu C-X (刘朝旭), et al. Method of multi-agent system for simulating land-use decision-making behavior of farmer households. Transaction of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (农业工程学报), 2013, 29(14): 227-237 (in Chinese)
[22] Nainggolan D, Termansen M, Reed MS, et al. Farmer typology, future scenarios and the implications for ecosystem service provision: A case study from south-eastern Spain. Regional Environmental Change, 2013, 13: 601-614
[23] Van den Berg AE, Van Winsum-Westra M. New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual pre-ferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2006, 78: 362-372
[24] Dronova I. Environmental heterogeneity as a bridge between ecosystem service and visual quality objectives in management, planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2017, 163: 90-106
[25] Schmidt K, Walz A, Martín-López B, et al. Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences. Ecosystem Services, 2017, 26: 270-288
[26] Fagerholm N, Oteros-Rozas E, Raymond CM, et al. Assessing linkages between ecosystem services, land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS. Applied Geography, 2016, 74: 30-46
[27] Zoderer BM, Tasser E, Erb KH, et al. Identifying and mapping the tourists’ perception of cultural ecosystem services: A case study from an Alpine region. Land Use Policy, 2016, 56: 251-261
[28] Zeng X-B (曾希柏), Yang Z-L (杨正礼). Agricul-tural environment quality of China and its improving countermeasures. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 2006, 17(1): 131-136 (in Chinese)
[29] Zhang X-Z (张旭珠), Han Y (韩印), Yu Z-R (宇振荣), et al. Spatio-temporal distribution of carabids and spiders between semi-natural field margin and the adjacent crop fields in agricultural landscape. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 2017, 28(6): 1879-1888 (in Chinese)
[30] Li C (李灿). The formation mechanism of appropriate scale management performance on the background of farmland transfer: An analysis based on CVP model. Economic Geography (经济地理), 2017, 37(11): 191-197 (in Chinese)