Assessing landscape preferences: a visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany

References

• Adevi, A.A., & Grahn, P. (2012). Preferences for Landscapes: A matter of cultural determinants or innate reflexes that point to our evolutionary background? Landscape Research, 37(1), 27–49. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.576884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg. (2012). Bevölkerung im Land Brandenburg nach amtsfreien Gemeinden, Ämtern und Gemeinden 31.Dezember 2012 (XLS-file; 83 KB) [Population in the state of Brandenburg after independent municipalities, offices and municipalities 31 December 2012].
   Google Scholar
• Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscapes. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2011a). Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: An image-based latent class approach. Landscape Research, 36(1), 19–40. doi:10.1080/01426397.2010.536204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2011b). The influence of age on recreational trail preferences of urban green-space visitors: A discrete choice experiment with digitally calibrated images. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(7), 891–908. doi:10.1080/09640568.2010.539875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J. F., Cañas-Madueño, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 115–125. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Berkel, D. B., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological Indicators, 37(PART A), 163–174. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bieling, C., & Plieninger, T. (2013). Recording manifestations of cultural ecosystem services in the landscape. Landscape Research, 38(5), 649–667. doi:10.1080/01426397.2012.691469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., … Tam, J. (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement. BioScience, 62(8), 744–756. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dachary-Bernard, J., & Rambonilaza, T. (2012). Choice experiment, multiple programmes contingent valuation and landscape preferences: How can we support the land use decision making process? Land Use Policy, 29(4), 846–854. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dramstad, W. E., Tveit, M. S., Fjellstad, W. J., & Fry, G. L. A. (2006). Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 465–474. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EEA. (2007). CLC2006 technical guidelines. Copenhagen:Author.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, D. L., Ryan, R. L., & De Young, R. (2002). Woodlots in the rural landscape: Landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(2–4), 101–112. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00213-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J. A., & de Lucio, J. V. (2006). Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(4), 393–407. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grammatikopoulou, I., Pouta, E., Salmiovirta, M., & Soini, K. (2012). Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(2), 181–191. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howley, P. (2011). Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics, 72, 161–169. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamakura, W. A., & Russell, G. J. (1989). A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 379–390.10.2307/3172759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinhückelkotten, S., & Neitzke, H. (2011). Nature awareness study. Hanover. Retrieved from http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/gesellschaft/Naturbewusstsein_2011/2011_Nature-Awareness-Study_bf.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Koetse, M. J., Brouwer, R., & van Beukering, P. J. H. (2015). Economic valuation methods for ecosystem services. In J. A. Bouma & P. J. H. van Beukering (Eds.), Ecosystem services: From concept to practice (pp. 108–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107477612
   Google Scholar
• Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge; University Press. doi:10.1002/jae.701
   Google Scholar
• Marsden, T., & Smith, E. (2005). Ecological entrepreneurship: Sustainable development in local communities through quality food production and local branding. Geoforum, 36(4), 440–451. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.07.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (p. 105:142). New York, NY: Academic Press. Retrieved from http://elsa.berkeley.edu/pub/reprints/mcfadden/zarembka.pdf
   Google Scholar
• MIL. (2012). Digitales Feldblockkataster (DFBK) Berlin und Brandenburg. geobroker- Landesvermessung und Geobasisinformation Brandenburg (LGB). Retrieved from http://www.mil.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.223513.de
   Google Scholar
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. doi:10.1196/annals.1439.003
   Google Scholar
• Ode, A., & Miller, D. (2011). Analysing the relationship between indicators of landscape complexity and preference. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(1), 24–40. doi:10.1068/b35084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 375–83. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orland, B., Daniel, T. C., & Haider, W. (1994). Calibrated images: Landscape visualizations to meet rigorous experimental design specification. In Proceedings of Decision Support 2001—Resource Technology 94. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (pp. 919–926), Washington, DC
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, J. F. (2000). Reliability of rating visible landscape qualities. Landscape Journal, 19(1–2), 166–178. doi:10.3368/lj.19.1-2.166
   Google Scholar
• Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–129. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rambonilaza, M., & Dachary-Bernard, J. (2007). Land-use planning and public preferences: What can we learn from choice experiment method? Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(4), 318–326. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2010). The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy, 27(3), 827–842. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soini, K., Vaarala, H., & Pouta, E. (2012). Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 124–134. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soliva, R., Bolliger, J., & Hunziker, M. (2010). Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the swiss alps. Landscape Research, 35(6), 671–696. doi:10.1080/01426397.2010.519436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder. (2011). Statistik lokal—Daten für die Gemeinden, kreisfreien Städte und Kreise Deutschlands [Data for municipalities, independent cities and counties of Germany], [DVD]. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
   Google Scholar
• Statistisches Bundesamt. (2014). Bevölkerung nach Bildungsabschluss in Deutschland. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/BildungForschungKultur/Bildungsstand/Tabellen/Bildungsabschluss.html
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, W., Larkin, K., Orland, B., & Anderson, D. (2003). Boater preferences for beach characteristics downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. Arizona. Journal of Environmental Management, 69(2), 201–211. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanwick, C. (2009). Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy, 26, S62–S75. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szücs, L., Anders, U., & Bürger-Arndt, R. (2015). Assessment and illustration of cultural ecosystem services at the local scale—A retrospective trend analysis. Ecological Indicators, 50, 120–134. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Environment. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org/InformationMaterial/TEEBReports/tabid/1278/Default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Tietz, A., Forstner, B., & Weingarten, P. (2013). Non-agricultural and supra-regional investors on the German agricultural land market: An empirical analysis of their significance and impacts. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(2), 86–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229–255. doi:10.1080/01426390600783269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungaro, F., Zasada, I., & Piorr, A. (2014). Mapping landscape services, spatial synergies and trade-offs. A case study using variogram models and geostatistical simulations in an agrarian landscape in North-East Germany. Ecological Indicators, 46, 367–378. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Berg, A. E., & Koole, S. L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 362–372. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zanten, B. T., Verburg, P. H., Koetse, M. J., & van Beukering, P. J. H. (2014). Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: A meta-analysis of case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 89–101. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zanten, B. T., Zasada, I., Koetse, M. J., Ungaro, F., Häfner, K., & Verburg, P. H. (2016). A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services, 17, 87–98. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., & Swinton, S. M. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 64(2), 253–260. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9(1), 1–33. doi:10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar