Visitors’ preferences for landscape conservation in Alpine environments:Differences across regions, conservation programmes, and socio-economic groups

References

• Aasetre, J., Gundersen, V., Vistad, O. I., & Holtrop, E. J. (2016). Recreational preferences along a naturalness-development continuum: Results from surveys in two unequal urban forests in Europe. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 16, 58–68.
   Google Scholar
• Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J. F., Canas-Adueno, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 115–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrio, M., & Loureiro, M. L. (2010). A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecological Economics, 69, 1023–1030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barroso, F. L., Pinto-Correia, T., Ramos, I. L., Surová, D., & Menezes, H. (2012). Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: Photo-based questionnaires in the mediterranean context. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 329–342.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartkowski, B., Lienhoop, N., & Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity. Ecological Economics, 113, 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bednar-Friedl, B., Gebetsroither, B., & Getzner, M. (2009). WTP for species conservation programs: Implications for national park management. Eco.Mont Journal of Protected Mountain Areas Research, 1(1), 9–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, S. (2001). Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 201–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blattert, C., Lemm, R., Thees, O., Lexer, M. L., & Hanewinkel, M. (2017). Management of ecosystem services in mountain forests: Review of indicators and value functions for model based multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecological Indicators, 79, 391–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briner, S., Huber, R., Bebi, P., Elkin, C., Schmatz, D. R., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2013). Trade-offs between ecosystem services in a mountain region. Ecology and Society, 18, 35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. (2007). Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: Combining mixed logit and random-effects models. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58, 467–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cord, A. F., Bartkowski, B., Beckmann, M., Dittrich, A., Hermans-Neumann, K., Kaim, A., … Volk, M. (2017). Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosystem Services, 28, 264–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czajkowski, M., Buszko-Briggs, M., & Hanley, N. (2009). Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 68, 2910–2917.
   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, 465–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dupras, J., Laurent-Lucchetti, J., Revéret, J.-P., & DaSilva, L. (2018). Using contingent valuation and choice experiment to value the impacts of agri-environmental practices on landscapes aesthetics. Landscape Research, 43, 679–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Environment Agency (EEA) (2017, July 7). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, v. 4.3). European Environment Agency (EEA) (cices.eu, www.eea.europa.eu).
   Google Scholar
• Filyushkina, A., Agimass, F., Lundhede, T., Strange, N., & Jacobsen, J. B. (2017). Preferences for variation in forest characteristics: Does diversity between stands matter? Ecological Economics, 140, 22–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., Witt, A., & Makeschin, F. (2013). Assessment of landscape aesthetics – validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecological Indicators, 32, 222–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Ode, Å., & Velarde, M. D. (2009). The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9, 933–947.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Getzner, M., Gutheil-Knopp-Kirchwald, G., Kreimer, E., Kirchmeir, H., & Huber, M. (2017). Gravitational natural hazards: Valuing the protective function of alpine forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 80, 150–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Getzner, M., Huber, M., Jäger, M., Kirchmeir, H., & Wuttej, D. (2018b). Bewertung der Ökosystemleistungen der Österreichischen Bundesforste (ÖBf): „Werte der Natur“ – Holz, Tourismus, erneuerbare energien, Ruhe, Kohlenstoffspeicherung. Research report of the Vienna University of Technology and E.C.O. Institute of Ecology (Klagenfurt) to the Austrian Federal Forests.
   Google Scholar
• Getzner, M., Meyerhoff, J., & Schläpfer, F. (2018a). Acceptance of and willingness-to-pay for nature conservation policies in state-owned forests. Forests, 9, 537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Getzner, M., & Svajda, J. (2015). Preferences of tourists with regard to changes in the landscape of the tatra national park in Slovakia. Land Use Policy, 48, 107–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González-Sepúlveda, J. M., & Loomis, J. B. (2010). Do CVM welfare estimates suffer from on-site sampling bias? A comparison of on-site and household visitor surveys. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 39, 561–570.
   Google Scholar
• Grabherr, G., Koch, G., Kirchmeir, H., & Reiter, K. (1998). Hemerobie österreichischer Waldökosysteme [Hemeroby of Austrian forest ecosystems] (Vol. 17). Innsbruck: Publications of the Austrian MaB program, MaB.
   Google Scholar
• Grêt-Regamey, A., Bishop, I. D., & Bebi, P. (2007). Predicting the scenic beauty value of mapped landscape changes in a mountainous region through the use of GIS. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 50–67.
   Google Scholar
• Grêt-Regamey, A., Weibel, B., Bagstad, K. J., Ferrari, M., Geneletti, D., Klug, H., … Tappeiner, U. (2014). On the effects of scale for ecosystem services mapping. PloS One, 9(12), e112601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn, T., Heinrup, M., & Lindborg, R. (2018). Landscape heterogeneity correlates with recreational values: A case study from Swedish agricultural landscapes and implications for policy. Landscape Research, 43, 696–707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2013). An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434–444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson, P.-O. (1993). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, R. J., Boyle, K. J., Adamowicz, W., Bennett, J., Brouwer, R., Cameron, T. A., … Vossler, C. A. (2017). Contemporary guidance for stated preference studies. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4, 319–405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, R. J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R. S., & Brouwer, R. (2015). Benefit transfer of environmental and resource values: A guide for researchers and practitioners. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Junge, X., Schüpbach, B., Walter, T., Schmid, B., & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2013). Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133, 67–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalivoda, O., Vojar, J., Skřivanová, Z., & Zahradník, D. (2014). Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents’ characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 36–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, H. P., Morris, J., Graves, A., Bradbury, R. B., McGinlay, J., & Bullock, J. M. (2017). Biodiversity and cultural ecosystem benefits in lowland landscapes in southern England. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 185–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C. K., & Han, S. Y. (2002). Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks’ tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tourism Management, 23, 531–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindemann-Matthies, L., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B., & Junge, X. (2010). Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98, 99–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markussen, M., Buse, R., Garrelts, M., Manez Costa, M., Menzel, S., & Marggraf, R. (2003). Valuation and conservation of biodiversity. Berlin, New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McRoberts, R. E., Winter, S., Chirici, G., & LaPoint, E. (2012). Assessing forest naturalness. Forest Science, 58, 294–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molina, J. R., Rodríguez Y Silva, F., & Herrera, M. (2016). Integrating economic landscape valuation into mediterranean territorial planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 56, 120–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakamae, E., Qin, X., & Tadamur, K. (2001). Rendering of landscapes for environmental assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 19–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCHRP. (2013). Evaluation of methodologies for visual impact assessments, NCHRP Report 741, Washington (D.C.): National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
   Google Scholar
• Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 375–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riera, R., Signorello, G., Thiene, M., Mahieu, P.-A., Navrud, S., Kaval, P., … Dragoi, S. (2012). Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines. Journal of Forest Economics, 18, 259–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schägner, J. P., Brander, L., Maes, J., Paracchini, M. L., & Hartje, V. (2016). Mapping recreational visits and values of European national parks by combining statistical modelling and unit value transfer. Journal for Nature Conservation, 31, 71–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schirpke, U., Meisch, C., Marsoner, T., & Tappeiner, U. (2018). Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings. Ecosystem Services, 31, 336–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schirpke, U., Timmermann, F., Tappeiner, U., & Tasser, E. (2016). Cultural ecosystem services of mountain regions: Modelling the aesthetic value. Ecological Indicators, 69, 78–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K., Walz, A., Martín-López, B., & Sachse, R. (2017). Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences. Ecosystem Services, 26, 270–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholte, S. S. K., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 67–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M., & Ram, Y. (2016). Tourism, landscapes and cultural ecosystem services: A new research tool. Tourism Recreation Research, 42, 113–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soliva, R., & Hunziker, M. (2009). How do biodiversity and conservation values relate to landscape preferences? A case study from the Swiss Alps. Biodiversity Conservation, 18, 2483–2507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliafierro, C., Boeri, M., Longo, A., & Hutchinson, W. G. (2016). Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation. Ecological Economics, 127, 11–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliafierro, C., Longo, A., Van Eetvelde, V., Antrop, M., & Hutchinson, W. G. (2013). Landscape economic valuation by integrating landscape ecology into landscape economics. Environmental Science & Policy, 32, 26–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., & Kolehmainen, O. (2001). Forest management and public perceptions - visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53, 53–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26, 24–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen, L., Buchecker, M., Degenhardt, B., & Vuletic, D. (2009). Evaluating the economic and social benefits of forest recreation and nature tourism. In S. Bell, M. Simpson, L. Tyrväinen, T. Sievänen, & U. Pröbstl (Eds.), European forest recreation and tourism: A handbook (pp. 35–63). London: Taylor and Francis.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigl, L. E., Depellegrin, D., Pereira, P., de Groot, R., & Tappeiner, U. (2017). Mapping the ecosystem service delivery chain: Capacity, flow, and demand pertaining to aesthetic experiences in mountain landscapes. Science of the Total Environment, 574, 422–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehouse, A. (2017). Common economic oversights in green infrastructure valuation. Landscape Research, 42, 230–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter, S. (2012). Forest naturalness assessment as a component of biodiversity monitoring and conservation management. Forestry, 85, 291–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zoderer, B. M., Tasser, E., Erb, K.-H., Lupo Stanghellini, P. S., & Tappeiner, U. (2016). Identifying and mapping the tourists’ perception of cultural ecosystem services: A case study from an alpine region. Land Use Policy, 56, 251–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar