TY - JOUR

T1 - Important places in landscape

T2 - investigating the determinants of perceived landscape value in the suburban area of Wrocław, Poland

AU - Solecka, Iga

AU - Rinne, Tiina

AU - Caracciolo Martins, Rodrigo

AU - Kytta, Marketta

AU - Albert, Christian

N1 - Funding Information: This project is supported by the Narodowe Centrum Nauki (Grant No. 2016/23/N/HS4/02114). The publication is financed under the Leading Research Groups support project from the subsidy increased for the period 2020–2025 in the amount of 2% of the subsidy referred to Art. 387 (3) of the Law of 20 July 2018 on Higher Education and Science, obtained in 2019. The authors would like to thank Bogusław Solecki for providing careful language editing.

PY - 2022/2

Y1 - 2022/2

N2 - Landscape planning studies usually consider landscape values through expert assessments of landscape aesthetic quality. Combining such expert assessments with people's perceptions as derived from citizen-based approaches is advisable, but scientific knowledge gaps exist regarding explanatory variables of perceived landscape values. This study aims to investigate determinants of landscape value as perceived by citizens. The suburban area of Wroclaw, Poland serves as an illustrative case study. Our research design consists of a three-step approach: (i) eliciting citizens’ landscape value types using a Public Participatory GIS survey, (ii) formally assessing indicators of landscape aesthetic quality, (iii) comparing physical environmental characteristics and accessibility for both types of areas with spatial-statistical methods. The survey results (n = 468) include 364 important landscape places attributed to environmental, cultural, aesthetic/scenic or personal reasons. Agricultural landscapes were appreciated highest due to associated perceived environmental and aesthetic values. The expert assessment of landscape aesthetic quality was implemented by GIS-based analyses of naturalness, diversity and uniqueness indicators. It's results showed that landscape aesthetic quality is distributed mainly across forested areas and river valleys. In general, elicited value types and landscape aesthetic quality indicators illustrated only weak relationships, with the exception of perceived environmental value and landscape naturalness. We conclude that citizens’ perceived landscape values often do not correspond with places identified in expert assessments. Landscape planning and management should therefore consider amending its portfolio of evaluation approaches to better capture values relevant for people.

AB - Landscape planning studies usually consider landscape values through expert assessments of landscape aesthetic quality. Combining such expert assessments with people's perceptions as derived from citizen-based approaches is advisable, but scientific knowledge gaps exist regarding explanatory variables of perceived landscape values. This study aims to investigate determinants of landscape value as perceived by citizens. The suburban area of Wroclaw, Poland serves as an illustrative case study. Our research design consists of a three-step approach: (i) eliciting citizens’ landscape value types using a Public Participatory GIS survey, (ii) formally assessing indicators of landscape aesthetic quality, (iii) comparing physical environmental characteristics and accessibility for both types of areas with spatial-statistical methods. The survey results (n = 468) include 364 important landscape places attributed to environmental, cultural, aesthetic/scenic or personal reasons. Agricultural landscapes were appreciated highest due to associated perceived environmental and aesthetic values. The expert assessment of landscape aesthetic quality was implemented by GIS-based analyses of naturalness, diversity and uniqueness indicators. It's results showed that landscape aesthetic quality is distributed mainly across forested areas and river valleys. In general, elicited value types and landscape aesthetic quality indicators illustrated only weak relationships, with the exception of perceived environmental value and landscape naturalness. We conclude that citizens’ perceived landscape values often do not correspond with places identified in expert assessments. Landscape planning and management should therefore consider amending its portfolio of evaluation approaches to better capture values relevant for people.

KW - Landscape quality assessment

KW - Perceived landscape quality

KW - PPGIS

KW - Spatial planning

KW - Suburban landscape

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85119018310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104289

DO - 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104289

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85119018310

VL - 218

JO - Landscape and urban planning

JF - Landscape and urban planning

SN - 0169-2046

M1 - 104289

ER -