Perceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapes

Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 557–564Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirectLand UsePolicyj o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w.e l s e v i e r.c o m /l o c a t e /l a n d u s e p olPerceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapesÅsa Ode Sang a ,∗,Mari Sundli Tveit ba Department of Landscape Architecture,Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,PO Box 58,SE23053Alnarp,SwedenbDepartment of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning,Norwegian University of Life Sciences,PO Box 5003,N1432Ås,Norwaya r t i c l ei n f oArticle history:Received 17December 2010Received in revised form 29August 2012Accepted 1September 2012Keywords:European Landscape Convention Landscape photographs Landscape preference Pairwise comparison Landscape indicatora b s t r a c tThe importance of the landscape as a tourism asset is well known,and the significance of perceptions of landscape is increasingly being recognized in policy and planning,in Europe thanks largely to the implementation of the European Landscape Convention.The abandonment of agricultural land is one of the ongoing processes of landscape change that are having a profound impact not only in Norway –the subject of this article –but across Europe.The article presents the findings from a study of perceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapes and the ways in which perceived stewardship is linked to landscape preference.The results of the study show that there are differences between land-scape professionals and the general public with regards to the perception of stewardship and cues used for assessing stewardship,and suggests that stewardship is a stronger factor in shaping the general pub-lic’s preferences.The implications of these results are discussed in relation to the European Landscape Convention and need for methods to assess and monitor landscape change processes.© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Introduction BackgroundIn Norway,agricultural landscape accounts for approximately 3%of the country.Farms have traditionally been small,which his-torically has forced farmers to diversify their agriculture as well as look to other means of generating income (for example,fishery and forestry)(see Daugstad et al.,2006;Hetland,1986;Goodale and Sky,2001).In the decade to 2010the Norwegian agricultural landscape changed (Statistics Norway,2011),with a 3%decrease in uti-lized agricultural land and a 12%decrease in open fields.At the same time there was an increase in hay-meadows and pasture by 2%.Farm structure has also changed,with an increase in average farm size from 14.7ha in 1999to 21.6ha in 2010,resulting in a decrease in the number of farms.The generally acknowledged driv-ing forces behind these changes are technological development,market prices for agricultural products,and national and inter-national agricultural policies (Dramstad and Sang,2010);this is a process that is evident across Europe,and is usually explained as resulting from a combination of abandonment (either complete or partial)and intensified land use (see,for example,Henle et al.,2008).These changes are both quantitative –with a decrease in land∗Corresponding author.Tel.:+4640415000;fax:+4640465442.E-mail addresses:asa.sang@slu.se (Å.Ode Sang),eit@umb.no (eit).used for agricultural purposes –and qualitative in nature,resulting in a loss of value and functionality (see,for example,Henle et al.,2008).Another factor believed to influence the pace of abandon-ment in Norway is the increase in tenancy farming noticeable in certain parts of Norway (Dramstad and Sang,2010),with the subse-quent decrease in the number of active farm units (Goodale and Sky,2001).Tenancy is believed not to promote the same level of land-scape management as owner–occupier farming,thereby increasing the risk of abandonment (Dramstad and Sang,2010).The abandonment of agricultural land and subsequent refor-estation is a process that has received attention across Europe as well as in Norway (see for instance Bryn and Debella-Gilo,2011).Parallel with farm abandonment,there is also a continuing decrease in the level of detail management;a drop often associated with non-residential farmers and changes in traditional agricul-tural management systems such as grazing and mowing (Dramstad and Sang,2010).In Norway the focus has very much been on the possible negative effects these processes have on both tourism and biodiversity (Dramstad and Sang,2010).Across Europe the importance of rural tourism as an income generator for rural areas has grown,and in places tourism has taken over from agriculture as the principal business for rural com-munities (Garrod et al.,2006).The importance of the landscape as tourism asset has been widely recognized (see,for exam-ple,Daugstad,2008;Dramstad and Sang,2010).Both agricultural policymakers and representatives from the tourism industry are increasingly aware of their common interest in the rural coun-tryside and the processes of landscape change (see,for example,0264-8377/$–see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved./10.1016/ndusepol.2012.09.001558Å.Ode Sang,eit/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 557–564Daugstad,2008).For the agricultural sector,rural tourism could provide a necessary diversification strategy with the potential to generate a substantial income for farmers and thus sustain agricul-tural practices in the landscape(Daugstad et al.,2006).Norway’s landscape and natural environment are her tourism industry’s core asset,and the agricultural activities evident in the countryside con-tribute to the type of heterogeneous landscape much appreciated by tourists.The presence of the farmer,often viewed as a custodian of the landscape’s qualities,is an important asset(Daugstad,2008). With the on-going process of regeneration of forest within the cul-tural landscape due to abandonment there is also the additional loss of accessibility and visibility of the landscape that is likely to affect key areas for rural tourism in Norway(see for instance Bryn and Debella-Gilo,2011).The experience of landscape is an impor-tant element for the tourism sector,but is also equally important for the quality of life of the people living there.The importance of people’s perceptions of the landscape has been acknowledged by the European Landscape Conven-tion(Council of Europe,2003).The adoption of the ELC across Europe has further emphasized the need tofind methods for incorporating people’s perception of landscape into monitoring, planning,and management.Several studies have pointed to the differences in perceptions of agricultural landscapes between groups such as farmers,experts,city dwellers,and conservation-ists(see,for example,Buijs et al.,2006;Rogge et al.,2007;Tveit, 2009),arguing that this may relate to perceived land stewardship (Tveit,2009).Identifying how different groups of people per-ceive land stewardship will increase our understanding of how abandonment processes affect the visual qualities of agricultural landscapes and the possible knock-on effects on tourism and recreation.The VisuLands framework,the result of a European Commission-funded research project‘Visualization tools for public participation in managing landscape change’,offers an approach to describing and analysing the character of the visual landscape in a systematic way(see,for example,Tveit et al., 2006;Ode et al.,2008).Through an extensive literature review, nine key concepts describing visual landscape character were identified as factors in the formation of human landscape prefer-ence,namely stewardship,coherence,disturbance,visual scale, historicity,imageability,naturalness,complexity,and ephemera. An important element in the VisuLands framework is the linking of indicators of the landscape’s visual character with the aesthetic theory of landscape.The framework identifies a range of available data sources with which to assess landscape change using visual indicators and the ways they complement one another in a com-prehensive approach to visual landscape assessment(Ode et al., 2010).An indicator approach such as the VisuLands framework is useful in assessing changes in spatial structure that influence preference and character.In the course of landscape change,the relative importance of the nine aspects of visual expression may change,thus altering the perceived visual quality of the landscape; for example,following abandonment the perceived stewardship may decrease whilst the perceived naturalness increases.Changes in the visual landscape will affect its character and its perceived visual quality.The degree of change in the landscape’s visual character and quality will vary between groups of people as well as between landscapes.Although the VisuLands framework (Ode et al.,2008)presents current indicators that are based on landscape aesthetic theory,there is a need for systematic tests to identify the importance of different aspects of landscape character for perceived visual quality and how this may differ between groups.In the study presented here we have focused on the concept of stewardship,as it would be useful to be able to identify the effects of agricultural practices such as abandonment and the lack of a farmer’s presence in the landscape,two aspects that greatly affect the expression of land stewardship.The study focuses on a specific visual aspect of landscape experience,the perception of steward-ship,though we appreciate that landscape experience is more than merely visual.Stewardship as a key aspect of the visual landscapeStewardship is a concept that refers to the experience of care and upkeep of a eit et al.(2006)define the concept of stewardship‘as the presence of order and care,contributing to a perceived accordance to an“ideal”situation.Stewardship reflects human care for the landscape through active and careful man-agement.’This is a much-noted concept in relation to agricultural landscapes and is widely seen as an important contributory factor in the formation of preference(Coeterier,1996;Nassauer,1995, 1997;Sevenant and Antrop,2009;van Mansvelt and Kuiper,1999; Weinstoerffer and Girardin,2000).It was concentration on stewardship that led Nassauer(1997) to develop the aesthetic theory of care,stressing the importance of having‘cues of care’in order to make sense of novel and often messy ecosystems in populated landscapes.While these cues might vary according to the landscape as well as the culture,an underly-ing principle is that they express care of the landscape.In order to identify such cues,we have to identify which elements are impor-tant in assessing whether a landscape appears cared for.Based on a literature review of current indicators,Ode et al.(2008)identify two main groups of cues for the assessment of stewardship:(1)The level of management of vegetation.This can be expressedthrough the extent of abandonment,the presence of weeds,and the management type,frequency,and detail(see,for example, Nassauer,1995;van Mansvelt and Kuiper,1999;Weinstoerffer and Girardin,2000).(2)The status and condition of man-made structures in the land-scape such as farm buildings and fences(see,for example, Laurie,1975;Nassauer,1995;Weinstoerffer and Girardin, 2000).There have been several studies that have looked at group differ-ences with regard to perceptions of stewardship and its bearing on preference,all of which point to the importance of the concept to a wide range of groups.Natori and Chenoweth(2008)have tested the hypothesis that‘Farmers’landscape preferences differ from natu-ralists’preferences such that stewardship is more important for farmers,whereas naturalness is more important for naturalists’. Their study shows that stewardship is a significant positive predic-tor of preference for both farmers and naturalists:for both groups, the marginalization of agriculture lowers the level of stewardship present in the landscape.Sevenant and Antrop’s questionnaire-based study(2010),in which the various VISULANDS concepts were used to explore individual differences in a latent class analysis of Flemish landscapes,confirmed the importance of the concept of care/stewardship in determining preference for a number of latent classes of respondents.The studies by Natori and Chenoweth(2008) and Sevenant and Antrop(2010)confirm the importance of stew-ardship for the formation of preference.When it comes to the elements that might play a part in the assessment of stewardship by different groups,the study by Rogge et al.(2007)indicates that there might be group differences involved in the assessment of stewardship.In their study of rural landscapes in Flanders they found maintenance to be an important factor in the attractiveness of landscape for three target groups–experts,country-dwellers,and farmers.Theirfindings show sig-nificant differences in the mean rating of attractiveness between groups and the use of different predictors for preference betweenÅ.Ode Sang,eit/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 557–564559the groups.These predictors are all to various degrees related to the concept of stewardship,suggesting that there might be differences in visual cues used for assessing the level of stewardship in the landscape.All three groups experienced openness as a positive attribute;farmers and country dwellers gave maintenance as a positive attribute;while experts and country dwellers used vegetation as a positive attribute.Thus in the present article we use of a set of complimentary surveys to answer the following questions:(1)What are the differences between landscape professionals’andthe general public’s perceptions of stewardship in the land-scape?(2)Does stewardship drive landscape preference for landscapeprofessionals and the general public?MethodThe questionnaireThe data comes from a questionnaire-based survey that used pairwise comparisons of twelve images of Norwegian agricultural landscapes.The photographs were taken by Oskar Puschmann as part of the Norwegian monitoring programme for agricultural land-scapes(the‘3Q’programme)(explained in detail in,for example, Dramstad et al.,2002).The twelve images were combined into sixty-six pairs,allowing every image to be compared with every other.The sixty-six pairs were divided into two sets of thirty-three pairs apiece,and each respondent saw one set.For each pair of images,the respondents were asked to choose the landscape that ‘looks better taken care of’.In order to secure a wide distribution,the survey developed was PC based and mainly distributed online.Recently,the Internet has become more and more popular as a medium for circulating sur-veys on landscape perception(see,for example,Garréet al.,2009; Ode et al.,2009;Rogge et al.,2007).General studies that have compared Internet-based surveys with more traditional methods of distribution have confirmed their validity(see,for example, Gosling et al.,2004),while more specific studies of landscape have shown that Internet-based surveys can provide valid evidence of preferences with respect to scenic quality(Roth,2006;Wherrett, 2000).The Internet survey consisted offive different parts:an introduction where the general aim of the survey was pre-sented;instructions that explained how tofill in the survey; background questions for the respondents;the evaluation of images using pairwise comparisons;and a thank you to respondents.For the background questions,each respon-dent supplied information about their age,gender,profession, membership of organizations related to landscape issues,and residency.The survey was put online and a request for respondents was sent out both to selected groups of people(including local author-ity and university staff working with landscape management and planning)and more generally to non-professional mailing lists. In the call for respondents we also invited them to pass on the survey link to others.The survey was open between September 2008and November2009.The total number of respondents was 131,of whom113provided complete responses and were used in the analysis.Each image was shown between609and640times. The distribution of respondent background variables is given in Table1.Table1Respondent background variables.Background variables Percentage of respondentsAge18–3015.930–5052.2Over5030.1Not given 1.8GenderMale38.9Female60.2Not given0.9Landscape professionalYes38.9No61.1Landscape organizationYes17.7No82.3ResidenceCity55.8Countryside44.2Table2Classification used for the application of stewardship indicators to images.Values Description5Highly maintained,intensively managed.Arablefieldswithout weeds.4Maintained,frequent management.Arablefields incrop and sparse density.3Maintained,low frequency of management–bushes,tall grass etc.Forest with active forestry.2Areas with little management.Forest with no sign offorestry operations.1Signs of neglect,for example dead treesContent of imagesOde et al.(2008),using landscape photographs,suggest a num-ber of different indicators that can be used to assess the degree of stewardship in the landscape.These indicators include level of abandonment,presence of weeds,management type,manage-ment frequency,management detail and status and condition of man-made features such as houses and fences.The content of the images used in the present study were classified and given a value for their level of abandonment,management type,and frequency(see Table2).For each image a Stewardship Index was calculated by summarizing the different classes weighted by area(see Table3).It should be noted that the images used in the current survey show only a limited number of man-made features.Perceived stewardship and landscape preferenceThe images had earlier been used in a preference study inves-tigating landscape preferences and group differences between experts and lay people(Tveit,2009).The data collected in the preference study was compared with the stewardship data col-lected in the current study to assess the importance of stewardship in determining preference.The preference study was conducted applying commonly used procedures in landscape research(see, for example,Hagerhall,2001;Herzog,1984),as described thor-oughly in Tveit(2009).The respondents consisted of one group selected to represent the general public(N=53)and groups of university students taking landscape-related courses to represent the expert view(N=150).The images were shown as slides on a large screen.The respondents were asked how much they liked each landscape,on afive-step Likert-type scale(as in,for example, Hagerhall,2001)(not at all=1,a little=2,fairly well=3,well=4,560Å.Ode Sang,eit/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 557–564Table3Stewardship value for the twelve images with mean preference value for students,the general public,and both groups together,and the back-transformed mean of stewardship selection.Image Stewardship indicator Mean preference score(from Tveit,2009)Stewardship back-transformed meanStudents General public All respondents LandProfs GenPubl All respondents1 3.50 3.88 3.62 3.810.630.630.632 4.68 2.84 3.64 3.05 5.4817.759.863 2.84 3.29 2.92 3.19 5.98 6.78 6.364 4.62 2.89 3.69 3.1063.74190.26110.125 3.24 3.49 3.62 3.52330.94505.72409.106 2.79 3.30 3.06 3.2411.3714.6812.927 2.74 3.54 3.32 3.488.469.749.088 3.44 3.31 3.21 3.290.000.000.009 3.61 3.05 2.68 2.960.040.080.0610 2.81 3.13 2.92 3.07 3.91 6.43 5.0211 3.14 3.40 3.04 3.310.220.170.1912 2.37 3.45 3.13 3.370.000.000.00very much=5).The preference values for the images are given in Table3.ResultsBackground variables of respondentsIn order to test for the influence of background variables,a ran-domized general linear mixed model(GLMM)was run in Genstat 11.The model used a Poisson distribution with a logarithmic link function.The analysis found a statistical significant relationship with stewardship selection for the background variables profession (F=6.92,p<0.001),gender(F=3.33,p<0.001),and age(F=2.84, p<0.001),with the only factor above the critical value of F being profession.In the following analysis we have therefore chosen not only to look at the total respondents as one group,but also to divide them into two groups in terms of professional interest–respon-dents working with landscape issues(LandProfs)and those not working with landscape issues(GenPubl).Ranking based on perceived stewardshipThe survey used a pairwise comparison of images,which does not provide a numerical value for whether the landscape looks cared for.In a GLMM this is calculated using a back-transformed mean and has been done here for all respondents and the two groups LandProfs and GenPubl,as shown in Table3.For all three groups of respondents the back-transformed mean showed the lowest value(0.00)for Images12and8.Images4and5 showed the highest value for all three groups,though with higher values for the group GenPubl compared to LandProfs.When it came to rank,there were four Images–Images2,3,6,and7–that changed ranking between the two groups,with Images3,6,and7receiving a higher ranking from the LandProfs compared to the GenPubl.The biggest variation in ranking was found for Image2,which the Gen-Publ ranked third for perceived stewardship,compared to sixth by the LandProfs.Selection between images in individual pairsThe basis for a pairwise comparison is the choice of one image over another,here with regards to stewardship.The results(see Appendix B)have been calculated as a distance matrix with absolute values,where a high value(0.5)means that all of the respondents chose one image over the other while a low value (0.0)means that the images were chosen equally.The correlation between the two matrices is low,with Spearman’s value R=0.25407.For the LandProfs there are three image pairs that had a distance value over0.45,meaning that more than90%of the respondents chose the same image in the pair:pairs2:5,4:5,and 6:9.The highest distance value for the GenPubl was0.39,which was found for image pair5:12.The mean distance value was also slightly higher for the LandProfs compared to the GenPubl(0.180 and0.167respectively).Selection of stewardship and measurement of stewardship The expression of stewardship in the images was measured using a stewardship indicator based on previous research and applied to all twelve images.The stewardship indicators were treated as values of the image in the GLMM analysis.The analyses were done for all respondents as well as for the LandProfs and Gen-Publ groups separately.The results showed a statistically significant relationship between the indicator and selection of stewardship that was stronger for the LandProfs(F=62.18,p<0.001)than the GenPubl(F=21.55,p<0.001).For the full sample of respondents the relationship was weak and not significant(F=1.93,p=0.165).The relationship between stewardship and landscape preference In order to explore the relationship between the stewardship and preference mean,preference values derived from a previous study using the same images were used.The mean preference score for the LandProfs,GenPubl,and all respondents were treated as val-ues of the image in the GLMM analysis.The analysis was done for all respondents(using the mean preference score for all respondents in the preference survey),LandProfs(using the mean preference score for the students),and GenPubl(using the mean preference score for the general public).The relationship between the stewardship selection and the mean preference score was higher for the GenPubl (F=53.38,p<0.001)than for the LandProfs(F=30.32,p<0.001);for the full sample of respondents there was no statistically significant relationship(F=0.25;p<0.615).DiscussionDifferences in the perceptions of stewardshipThe results of the study show that there is a difference in the perceptions of land stewardship between landscape professionals and the general public.This was stronger than any other back-ground variable tested for in the study,although age and genderÅ.Ode Sang,eit/Land Use Policy31 (2013) 557–564561also showed statistically significant relationships.The landscape professionals also showed stronger agreement and consistency in their choice of individual pairs of images.To explore the differences in the evaluation of stewardship,and the potential variation in cues,we applied the back-transformed mean,which showed that Images4,5and2had a much higher value for the general public than for the landscape professionals. Looking at their content,we could see that they are dominated by crops.Images8and9,which are also dominated by crops, give a messier impression and also include substantial amounts of forest.This would suggest that,for the general public,crop pro-duction is a stronger cue for stewardship than it is for landscape professionals.If we look at the nine pairs of images where there was a differ-ence of more than25%in the images selected by the two groups, we could see that the landscape professionals preferred one of the images to a far greater extent,while the general public were more even in which of the two images were selected.The content of the images where these differences occurred suggests that the general public generally seems to associate crop production more strongly with stewardship than do landscape ndscape pro-fessionals were more inclined than the general public to select the landscape with a more complex composition as showing greater stewardship.The indicator of stewardship applied in this study was derived from previous landscape research(see,for example,van Mansvelt and Kuiper,1999;Weinstoerffer and Girardin,2000)and focused on the level of vegetation management.This provides very much an expert-based interpretation of the content of the image,where knowledge of the succession and expression of different man-agement regimes is essential.An awareness of the management regimes needed for agricultural production in a landscape of the type shown in the images might be limited for the general(and often urban)population.Here the images that include crop produc-tion are an exception as they show clearly maintained agricultural production,which may explain the higher scores from the general public.This would suggest that,while the level of succession serves as a cue for the landscape professionals,it is a much weaker cue of stewardship for the population at large.The relationship between stewardship and preferenceThe study showed there to be a strong relationship between preference and the stewardship ranking if we take the two groups of respondents separately.This relationship was statistically stronger for the non-professionals.When looking at the full sample of respondents there was no such statistical relationship.This would indicate that the relationship between preference and stewardship differs between the two groups.In this study we combined thefindings from two different surveys with different groups of respondents but with similar characteristics,which may have influenced the result.The prefer-ence survey(Tveit,2009),which provided the images used for the stewardship evaluation,showed significantly different preference ratings,particularly for the images of landscapes that show large open eit(2009)also suggests that a high degree of stew-ardship could be a more significant determinant of preference for the general public than for the professionals.Several studies have pointed to the role of education and knowledge as factors in land-scape preferences(see,for example,Coeterier,2002;Gobster,1999; Strumse,1996).The present study suggests that perceived steward-ship is strongly associated with personal preference,particularly for the non-professional.However,there is also a divergence in perceptions of stewardship between landscape professionals and the general public.Conclusions and implications for policy and planning The results of this study suggest that(1)there are differences in the perception of stewardship between people working with land-scape issues and the general public;(2)the two groups use different cues in assessing stewardship(e.g.the general public generally seems to associate crop production more strongly with stewardship while landscape professionals were more inclined than the general public to select the landscape with a more complex composition as showing greater stewardship);and(3)the influence of stewardship on preference varies between the two groups,with stewardship contributing more strongly to the formation of the general public’s preferences.The literature confirms that stewardship is an important compo-nent in people’s landscape preferences(see,for example,Nassauer, 1995,1997).However,the results of the present study show that stewardship is a stronger factor in the general public’s landscape preference than in the landscape professionals’,and that the pub-lic use different cues for assessing stewardship.Thus far,surveys using imagery and Likert scales or forced choice have been the main methods employed when exploring the importance of different ele-ments in assessing landscape(see,for example,Nassauer,1997; Ode et al.,2009;Sevenant and Antrop,2009).In order to explore further the cues used in landscape assessment,landscape research would do well to draw on the methods of other disciplines such as cognitive science.The use of techniques such as eye-movement tracking,alone or in combination with more traditional techniques such as interviews,would allow us to consider the factors that are important when forming decisions.The decrease in traditional agricultural practices resulting in the abandonment of agricultural land(see,for example,Henle et al.,2008)has highlighted the need for a system monitoring these changes that takes into account multiple landscape func-tions and values.The increased awareness of the landscape as a resource for the tourist industry,and thus the promise of new sources of income for farmers(Daugstad,2008;Dramstad and Sang,2010),provides afinancial incentive for including experien-tial functions in the monitoring.In addition,the implementation of the European Landscape Convention highlights the need to include people’s perceptions of landscape in its management,planning,and monitoring.A range of stewardship indicators is currently in use in European landscape monitoring programmes,as in the overviews provided by the VISULANDS framework(Ode et al.,2008;Tveit et al.,2006). The stewardship indicators applied here were derived from such existing indicators as were relevant to the image material.Due to the specific exclusion of prominent man-made features in the images the focus fell mainly on the status of the vegetation,though several studies have previously emphasized the importance of the status of man-made features as a cue for stewardship(see,for example,Nassauer,1995,1997).The results from this study high-light that there is a difference between landscape professionals and the general public when it comes to their perceptions of steward-ship and the correlation with the chosen stewardship indicator. While landscape professionals generally chose the images with a high stewardship indicator value,this was less the case for the general public.This would imply that the two groups use differ-ent cues when assessing stewardship.The European Landscape Convention explicitly asks for the inclusion of people’s landscape perception and appreciation in policy and planning.To achieve this,we should ask ourselves which cues are relevant to moni-toring programmes and visual landscape assessment frameworks. Monitoring programmes aimed at capturing people’s landscape perceptions should put greater emphasis on stewardship,and ensure that the right stewardship cues are included as indicators in the monitoring programmes.。