Urbanization diverges residents’ landscape preferences but towards a more natural landscape: case to complement landsenses ecology from the lens of landscape perception

References

• Antrop M. 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan. 67(1–4):9–26. doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(03)00026-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arsiso BK, Tsidu GM, Stoffberg GH, Tadesse T. 2018. Influence of urbanization-driven land use/cover change on climate: the case of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Phys Chem Earth. 105:212–223. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2018.02.009.
   Google Scholar
• Bain PG, Kroonenberg PM, Johansson LO, Milfont TL, Crimston CR, Kurz T, Bushina E, Calligaro C, Demarque C, Guan Y, et al. 2019. Public views of the sustainable development goals across countries. Nat Sustain. 2:819–825. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0365-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonthoux S, Chollet S, Balat I, Legay N, Voisin L. 2019. Improving nature experience in cities: what are people’s preferences for vegetated streets? J Environ Manage. 230:335–344. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourassa SC. 1988. Toward a theory of landscape aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plan. 15(3–4):241–252. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(88)90048-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dallimer M, Irvine KN, Skinner AMJ, Davies ZG, Rouquette JR, Rouquette JR, Maltby LL, Warren PH, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ. 2012. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience. 62(1):47–55. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot WT, van den Born RJG. 2003. Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in the Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan. 63(3):127–138. doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00184-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vos C, Leanza L, Mackintosh A, Ludtke T, Balzan R, Moritz S, Andreou C. 2019. Investigation of sex differences in delusion-associated cognitive biases. Psychiat Res. 272:515–520. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean J, Van Dooren K, Weinstein P. 2011. Does biodiversity improve mental health in urban settings? Med Hypoth. 76(6):877–880. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2011.02.040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang YG, Liu JS. 2014. The modification of north china quadrangles in response to rural social and economic changes in agricultural villages: 1970-2010s. Land Use Policy. 39:266–280. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco D, Franco D, Mannino I, Zanetto G. 2003. The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation - the role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landsc Urban Plan. 62(3):119–138. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00127-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedrichs J. 1993. A theory of urban decline - economy, demography and political elites. Urban Stud. 30(6):907–917. doi:10.1080/00420989320080851.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujian Provincial People’s Governmen. 2010. Fujian ecological function regionalization. Fuzhou: Fujian Provincial People’s Government.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. 2007. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett. 3(4):390–394. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grace D, Jeuland M. 2018. Preferences for attributes of sacred groves and temples along an urbanization gradient in the national capital region of India. Ecol Econ. 152:322–335. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grassini S, Revonsuo A, Castellotti S, Petrizzo I, Benedetti V, MikaKoivisto M. 2019. Processing of natural scenery is associated with lower attentional and cognitive load compared with urban ones. J Environ Psychol. 62:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halfacree KH. 1995. Talking about rurality: social representations of the rural as expressed by residents of six English parishes. J Rural Stud. 11(1):1–20. doi:10.1016/0743-0167(94)00039-C.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howley P, Hynes S, Donoghue C. 2012. Countryside preferences: exploring individuals’ willingness to pay for the conservation of the traditional farm landscape. Landsc Res. 37(6):703–719. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.637619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu S, Yue H, Zhou Z. 2019. Preferences for urban stream landscapes: opportunities to promote unmanaged riparian vegetation. Urban for Urban Gree. 38:114–123. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang YH, Yue ZEJ, Ling SK, Tan HHV. 2019. It’s ok to be wilder: preference for natural growth in urban green spaces in a tropical city. Urban for Urban Gree. 38:165–176. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karimi A, Adams VM. 2019. Planning for the future: combining spatially-explicit public preferences with tenure policies to support land-use planning. Land Use Policy. 82:497–508. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leite SK, Vendruscolo GS, Renk AA, Kissmann C. 2019. Perception of farmers on landscape change in southern Brazil: divergences and convergences related to gender and age. J Rural Stud. 69:11–18. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.04.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li YR, Liu YS, Long HL, Cui WG. 2014. Community-based rural residential land consolidation and allocation can help to revitalize hollowed villages in traditional agricultural areas of China: evidence from Dancheng County, Henan Province. Land Use Policy. 39:188–198. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu QY, Fu WC, van den Bosch CCK, Xiao YH, Zhu ZP, You D, Zhu N, Huang Q, Lan S. 2018. Do local landscape elements enhance individuals’ place attachment to new environments? A cross-regional comparative study in China. Sustainability. 10(9):3100. doi:10.3390/su10093100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu YS, Liu Y, Chen YF, Long HL. 2010. The process and driving forces of rural hollowing in China under rapid urbanization. J Geogr Sci. 20(6):876–888. doi:10.1007/s11442-010-0817-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long HL, Li YR, Liu YS, Woods M, Zou J. 2012. Accelerated restructuring in rural China fueled by ‘increasing vs. decreasing balance’ land-use policy for dealing with hollowed villages. Land Use Policy. 29(1):11–22. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Martínez F. 2017. Visual landscape preferences in Mediterranean areas and their socio-demographic influences. Ecol Eng. 104:205–215. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo T, Xu M, Huang TT, Ren XP, Bu XY. 2018. Rethinking the intensified disparity in urbanization trajectory of a Chinese coastal province and its implications. J Clean Prod. 195:1523–1532. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo T, Xu M, Wang ZF, Yu ZW. 2019. Comparative study on the performance of three color schemes in landscape preference tests. J Environ Eng Landsc. 27(2):114–125. doi:10.3846/jeelm.2019.9805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascarenhas A, Haase D, Ramon TB, Santos R. 2019. Pathways of demographic and urban development and their effects on land take and ecosystem services: the case of lisbon metropolitan area, portugal. Land Use Policy. 82:181–194. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massoni ES, Varga D, Sáez M, Pintó J. 2016. Exploring aesthetic preferences in rural landscapes and the relationship with spatial pattern indices. J Landsc Ecol. 9(1):5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Milcu AI, Sherren K, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J. 2014. Navigating conflicting landscape aspirations: application of a photo-based q-method in Transylvania (central Romania). Land Use Policy. 41:408–422. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misgav A. 2000. Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landsc Urban Plan. 48(3–4):143–159. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00038-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nassauer J 1979. Managing for naturalness in wildland and agricultural landscapes. In: Elsner, GH, Smardon, RC, technical coordinators. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: a Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource; April 23–25, 1979, Incline Village, Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-35. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture; p. 447–453.
   Google Scholar
• Nassauer JI. 2011. Care and stewardship: from home to planet. Landsc Urban Plan. 100(2011):321–323. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.022.
   Google Scholar
• Ode A, Fry G, Tveit MS, Messager P, Miller D. 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J Environ Manage. 90(1):375–383. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oteros-Rozas E, Martin-Lopez B, Gonzalez JA, Plieninger T, Lopez-Santiago CA, Montes C. 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Reg Environ Change. 14:1269–1289. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0571-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purcell AT, Lamb RJ. 1998. Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach. Landsc Urban Plan. 42(1):57–66. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00073-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders CD, Brook AT, Myers OE. 2006. Using psychology to save biodiversity and human well-being. Conserv Biol. 20(3):702–705. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00435.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schamel J, Job H. 2017. National parks and demographic change – modelling the effects of ageing hikers on mountain landscape intra-area accessibility. Landsc Urban Plan. 163:32–43. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt K, Martin-Lopez B, Phillips PM, Julius E, Makan N, Walz A. 2019. Key landscape features in the provision of ecosystem services: insights for management. Land Use Policy. 82:353–366. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shr YH, Ready R, Orland B, Echols S. 2019. How do visual representations influence survey responses? Evidence from a choice experiment on landscape attributes of green infrastructure. Ecol Econ. 156:375–386. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon D. 2008. Urban environments: issues on the peri-urban fringe. Ann Rev Environ Resour. 33:167–185. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.33.021407.093240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sklenicka P, Molnarova K. 2010. Visual perception of habitats adopted for post-mining landscape rehabilitation. Environ Manage. 46:424–435. doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9513-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song L, Lu M. 2016. The study of the difference of landscape preference. Design. 21:27–29. in Chinese.
   Google Scholar
• Surova D, Pinto-Correia T. 2016. A landscape menu to please them all: relating users’ preferences to land cover classes in the Mediterranean region of Alentejo, southern Portugal. Land Use Policy. 54:355–365. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.02.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talen E, Wheeler SM, Anselin L. 2018. The social context of U.S. built landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 177:266–280. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang IC, Sullivan WC, Chang CY. 2015. Perceptual evaluation of natural landscapes: the role of the individual connection to nature. Environ Behav. 47(6):595–617. doi:10.1177/0013916513520604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang LN, Wang H, Wang LY, Qiu QY. 2016. Landscape pattern optimization for Xianghe segment of China’s grand canal. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol. 23(4):305–311. doi:10.1080/13504509.2015.1127861.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich RS. 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 13:29–44. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeek P. 2009. Conservation psychology understanding and promoting human care for nature. Science. 325:817. doi:10.1126/science.1176734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang R, Zhao J, Liu Z. 2016. Consensus in visual preferences: the effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban for Urban Gree. 20:210–217. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang RG, Zhao JW. 2017. Demographic groups’ differences in visual preference for vegetated landscapes in urban green space. Sustain Cities Soc. 28:350–357. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.10.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang ZF. 2018. Evolving landscape-urbanization relationships in contemporary China. Landsc Urban Plan. 171:30–41. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.11.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xing R, Hanaoka T, Kanamori Y, Masui T. 2018. Estimating energy service demand and CO2 emissions in the Chinese service sector at provincial level up to 2030. Resour Conserv Recycl. 134:347–360. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu KJ. 1986. Evaluation method of natural landscape. J Chin Landsc Archit. 3:38–40. (in Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Zhang L, LeGates RT, Zhao M. 2016. Understanding China’s urbanization: the great demographic, spatial, economic, and social transformation. Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang XL, Han L. 2018. Which factors factors affect farmers’ willingness for rural community remediation? A tale of three rural villages in China. Land Use Policy. 74:195–203. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao J, Liu X, Dong RC, Shao GF. 2016. Landsenses ecology and ecological planning toward sustainable development. Int J Sust Dev World. 23:293–297. doi:10.1080/13504509.2015.1119215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao J, Yan Y, Deng H, Liu G, Dai L, Tang L, Shi L, Shao G. 2020. Remarks about landsenses ecology and ecosystem services. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 27: 196–201. doi:10.1080/13504509.2020.1718795.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng RB, Zhang TH, Liu ZF, Wang HW. 2016. An eiot system designed for ecological and environmental management of the Xianghe segment of China’s grand canal. Int J Sust Dev World. 23(4):372–380. doi:10.1080/13504509.2015.1124470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu FK, Zhang FR, Ke XL. 2018. Rural industrial restructuring in china’s metropolitan suburbs: evidence from the land use transition of rural enterprises in suburban beijing. Land Use Policy. 74:121–129. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar