Keywords
Landscape elements
Environmental perception
Q methodology
How to Cite
Abstract
Landscape preference varies according to the cultural and social experiences of the individual. People preferred landscapes are related to natural environments, with the presence of vegetation and water. Age and gender are variables that can influence landscape preference, especially the feeling of security related to age and aesthetics with gender. This study aimed to analyze the visual preference for the landscape by farmers and to assess whether age and gender are variables related to this preference. Farmers from the Western Region of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil, were interviewed, using semi-structured interviews to collect social and cultural data, and the Q method, through photographs, to identify landscape preferences. Discourses, gradient of landscape preference and influence of age and gender on this preference in the results were identified using multivariate analyzes and statistical tests. Three discourses of landscape preference were identified: natural landscape for appreciation and recreation; rural landscape as familiarity; and cultural landscape. The farmers' preference followed the gradient natural > rural > urban > degraded landscapes. Natural elements with native vegetation and water were preferred in the landscape while environmental degradation, forestry and urban environments without natural green elements were rejected. The lower the age the higher the preference for natural landscapes and the higher the age the higher the preference for urban landscapes. In relation to gender, differences were observed only regarding the landscape with forestry. Consider the perceptions of people in urban and rural landscape management is important for the population to identify with the place they reside. In this perspective, this study demonstrated that farmers do not identify with degraded landscapes and with urban landscapes without the presence of trees.
References
ARRIAZA, M.; CAÑAS-ORTEGA, J. F.; CAÑAS-MADUEÑO, J. A.; RUIZ-AVILES, P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan, v. 69, p. 115-125, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029
BONTHOUX, S.; CHOLLET, S.; BALAT, I.; LEGAY, N.; VOISIN, L. Improving nature experience in cities: what are people’s preferences for vegetated streets? J Environ Manage, v. 230, p. 335–344, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.056
BROWN, S. R. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1980.
BURMIL, S.; DANIEL, T. C.; HETHERINGTON, J. D. Human values and perceptions of water in arid landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan, v. 44, p. 99-109, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00007-9
CARNEIRO, M. J. Ruralidade contemporâneas: modos de viver e pensar rural na sociedade brasileira. Mauad X, Rio de Janeiro, 2012.
CRUZ, M.; QUIROZ, R.; HERRERO, M. Use of Visual Material for Eliciting Shepherds' Perceptions of Grassland in Highland Peru. Mt Res Dev, v. 27, n. 2, p. 146-152, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0793
DENARDIN, V. F.; SULZBACH, M. T. Os Possíveis Caminhos da Sustentabilidade para a Agropecuária da Região Oeste de Santa Catarina. Editora Unijuí, ano 3, n. 6, 2005.
DORIGON, C.; RENK, A. Técnicas e Métodos Tradicionais de Processamento de Produtos Coloniais. Rev. de Economia Agrícola, São Paulo, v. 58, n. 1, p. 101-113, 2011.
DRAMSTAD, W. E.; SUNDLI TVEIT, M.; FJELLSTAD, W. J.; FRY, G. L. A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape Urban Plan, v. 78, p. 465-474, 2006.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006
FUENTE DE VAL, G.; ATAURI MEZQUIDA, J.; DE LUCIO FERNANDEZ, J. El aprecio por el paisaje y su utilidad en la conservación de los paisajes de Chile Central. Revista Ecosistemas, v. 13, n. 2, p. 82-89, 2004.
FUENTES, F. J. “La experiencia cualitativa en el paisaje y el espacio construido”, Bogotá, Revista de Estudios sobre Patrimonio Cultural. J Cult Herit, v. 24, n. 2, p. 166-177, 2011.
GAO, T.; LIANG, H.; CHEN, Y.; QIU, L. Comparisons of Landscape Preferences through Three Different Perceptual Approaches. International journal of environmental research and public health, v. 16, n. 23, p. 4754, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234754
HALL, C. The landscape aesthetics of functional change in agriculture: how do they impact on rural residentes in Scotland? European IFSA Symposium, p. 6 -10, Clermont-Ferrand (France), 2008.
HARTEL, T.; FISCHER, J.; CÂMPEANU, C.; MILCU, A.I.; HANSPACH, J.; FAZEY, I. The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. Ecol Soc, v.19, n. 2, p. 42, 2014. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06333-190242
HEMSTRÖM, K.; MAHAPATRA, K.; GUSTAVSSON, L. Public Perceptions and Acceptance of Intensive Forestry in Sweden. AMBIO, v. 43, p. 196–206, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0411-9
HOWLEY, P. Landscape aesthetics: assessing the general public’s rural landscape preferences. RERC Working Paper Series, p. 11-05, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026
HUNZIKER, M.; BUCHECKER, M.; HARTIG, T. Space and Place – Two Aspects of the Human-landscape Relationship. In: KIENAST, F.; WILDI, O.; GOSH, S. (ed). A changing world: Challenges for landscape research, Springer, Dordrecht, p. 47-62, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4436-6_5
HUNZIKER, M.; FELBER, P.; GEHRING, K.; BUCHECKER, M.; BAUER, N.; KIENAST, F. Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Mt Res Dev, v. 28, n. 2, p. 140-147, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0952
IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Manual Técnico da Vegetação Brasileira. 2a edição ed. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística - IBGE, Rio de Janeiro, 2012.
ISLAS, P. V. A visual perception study in landscapes subject to fires in South East Australia. Bosque, v. 33, n. 3, p. 287-292, 2012. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-92002012000300010
KAPLAN, R.; KAPLAN S.; BROWN, T. Environmental Preference: A Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors. Environment and Behavior, v. 21, n. 5, p. 509-530, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589215001
KLEIN, R. M. Mapa fitogeográfico do estado de Santa Catarina. In: Flora Ilustrada Catarinense. (R. Reitz, ed.) Herbário Barbosa Rodrigues, 1978. p. 24.
LAROCHE, G.; DOMON, G.; OLIVIER, A. Exploring the social coherence of rural landscapes featuring agroforestry intercropping systems using locals’ visual assessments and perceptions. Sustain Sci, v. 15, p. 1337–1355, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00837-3
LE LAY, Y. F.; PIÉGAY, H.; HONEGGER, A. R. Perception of braided river landscapes: Implications for public participation and sustainable management. J Environ Manage, v. 119, p. 1-12, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.006
LÓPEZ-MARTÍNEZ, F. Visual landscape preferences in Mediterranean areas and their socio-demographic influences. Ecol Eng, v. 104, p. 205–215, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.04.036
MEINING, D. W. O olho que observa: dez versões da mesma cena. Espaço e cultura, UERJ, RJ, n. 13, p. 34-46, 2002.
MILCU, A. I.; SHERREN, K.; HANSPACH, J.; ABSON, D.; FISCHER, J. Navigating conflicting landscape aspirations: Application of aphoto-based Q-method in Transylvania (Central Romania). Land Use Policy, v. 41, p. 408-422, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.019
MYERS, N.; MITTERMEIER, R. A.; MITTERMEIER, C. G.; DA FONSECA, G. A. B.; KENT, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, v. 403, n. 6772, p. 853–858, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
NIMER, E. Climatologia do Brasil. 2nd ed. IBGE, Departamento de Recursos Naturais e Estudos Ambientais, Rio de Janeiro, 1989.
OVERBECK, G. E.; MÜLLER, S. C.; FIDELIS, A.; PFADENHAUER, J.; PILLAR, V. D.; BLANCO, C. C.; BOLDRINI, I. I.; BOTH, R.; FORNECK, E. D. Brazil’s neglected biome: The South Brazilian Campos. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst, v. 9, n. 2, p. 101–116, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2007.07.005
PERON, E.; BERTO, R.; PURCELL, T. Restorativeness, preference and the perceived naturalness of places. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, v. 3, p. 19-34, 2002.
PLIENINGER, T.; HÖCHTL, F.; SPEK, T. Traditional land-use and nature conservationin european rural landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy, v. 9, p. 317–321, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.03.001
PÜSCHEL-HOENEISEN, N.; SIMONETTI, J. A. Forested habitat preferences by Chilean citizens: Implications for biodiversity conservation, in Pinus radiata plantations. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, v. 85, p. 161-9, 2012. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-078X2012000200002
SANTOS, M. A Natureza do Espaço: técnica e tempo, razão e emoção. São Paulo: Editorada Universidade de São Paulo, 2006.
SANTOS, N. R. Z.; LONGHI, S. J. Percepção das paisagens da Floresta Nacional de Canela (RS) pelos turistas. Ambiência, v. 1, p. 113-123, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5777/ambiencia.2012.01.09
SCHWARZ, M. L.; ANDRÉ, P.; SEVEGNAN, L. Preferências e valores para com as paisagens da Mata Atlântica: uma comparação segundo a idade e o gênero. Caminhos de Geografia, v. 9, n. 26, p. 114-132, 2008.
SHUIB, K. B.; HASHIM, H. Cultural landscape values of a rural landscape: Perceptionof outsiders and tourists. IFLA APR Congress-Hospitality: The Interaction with Land 9-21, Bangkok, Thailand, 2011.
SOY-MASSONI, E.; VARGA, D.; SÁEZ, M.; PINTÓ, J. Exploring aesthetic preferences in rural landscapes and the relationship with spatial pattern índices. J Landsc Ecol, p. 9-1, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1515/jlecol-2016-0001
TANG, I. C.; SULLIVAN, W. C.; CHANG, C. Y. Perceptual Evaluation of Natural Landscapes: The Role of the Individual Connection to Nature. Environ Behav, p. 1-23, 2014.
TUAN, Y. F. Thought and landscape. In: Meining, D. W. (Ed.). The interpretation of ordinary landscapes. Oxford University Press, New York, 1979.
VAN DEN BERG, A. E.; KOOLE, S. L. New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan, v. 78, p. 362-372, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006
VAN DEN BERG, A. E.; KOOLE, S. L.; WULP, N. Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? J Environ Psychol, v. 23, p. 135-146, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1
VIBRANS, A. C.; SCHAADT, S. S.; MEYER, C.; GASPER, A. L. de.; LINGNER, D. V.; KRÜGER, A.; KORTE, A. Levantamento de árvores “fora da floresta”. In: VIBRANS, A. C.; SEVEGNANI, L.; GASPER, A. L. de.; LINGNER, D. V. (eds). Inventário Florístico Florestal de Santa Catarina, Vol. I. Diversidade e conservação dos remanescentes florestais. Blumenau, Edifurb, 2012.
VIEBRANTZ, K. P. Plantação de eucaliptos: uma alternativa econômica ou um problema ambiental? Revista grifos, v. 27, 2009.
XU, M.; LUO, T.; WANG, Z. Urbanization diverges residents’ landscape preferences but towards a more natural landscape: case to complement landsenses ecology from the lens of landscape perception, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, v. 27, n. 3, p. 250-260, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1727989
ZABALA, A. Qmethod: A Package to Explore Human Perspectives Using Q Methodology. The R Journal, v.6, n. 2, p. 163-173, 2014. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2014-032
Authors hold the Copyright for articles published in this journal, and the journal holds the right for first publication. Because they appear in a public access journal, articles are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution (BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.