*

How do urban dwellers react to potential landscape changes in recreation areas? A case study with particular focus on the introduction of dendromass in the Hamburg Metropolitan Region

Thiemen Boll   , Christina von Haaren, Christian Albert

iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry, Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages 423-433 (2014)
doi: https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1173-007
Published: May 19, 2014 - Copyright © 2014 SISEF

Research Articles

Collection/Special Issue: RegioResources21
Spatial information and participation of socio-ecological systems: experiences, tools and lessons learned for land-use planning
Guest Editors: Daniele La Rosa, Carsten Lorz, Hannes Jochen König, Christine Fürst


Recently, many German regions have seen dramatic landscape changes in agricultural areas due to increasing cultivation of bioenergy crops. Especially in regions that are economically dependent on income from recreational use, this development faces opposition by tourist stakeholders, local inhabitants and recreationists. In the future tall bioenergy plants like maize could be replaced by even taller short rotation coppice plantations of willow and poplar. This development raises the question of how people perceive landscape changes and if perceptions are influenced by the landscape where they take place. We surveyed urban residents in the city of Hamburg (n= 400) to see how they perceive potential landscape changes in four recreation areas with different landscape structures in the vicinity of Hamburg (Lüneburg Heath, Harburg Hills, Elbe Marshes and Altes Land). The survey showed that people rated changes significantly different, depending on the specific landscape type of the recreation areas. The survey did not show a clear general preference for reducing or increasing forests. However, the landscape character of each recreation area had a strong influence on the acceptance of landscape changes by planting forests, hedges, and shrubs. People showed a significantly higher negative reaction towards more forests in open landscapes characterized by heath and meadows than in landscapes with a higher share of forests and fields. Interestingly, the introduction of hedges and shrubs was evaluated differently from the introduction of forests depending on the type of open landscape. People preferred the introduction of hedges and shrubs in the landscape rich in meadows and pastures while they rejected the introduction of hedges and shrubs in a historic cultural landscape rich in heathland. In view of these results we recommend that the landscape character and the cultivation system are considered in the assessment and determination of potential short rotation coppice production sites. This may considerably increase the acceptability of dendromass cultivation for energy purposes.

  Keywords


Landscape Changes, Recreation, Landscape Character, Visual Landscape, Dendromass, Short Rotation Coppice, Agriculture, Forestry

Authors’ address

(1)
Thiemen Boll
Christina von Haaren
Christian Albert
Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz University Hannover, Herrenhäuser Str. 2, D-30419 Hannover (Germany)

Corresponding author

 

Citation

Boll T, von Haaren C, Albert C (2014). How do urban dwellers react to potential landscape changes in recreation areas? A case study with particular focus on the introduction of dendromass in the Hamburg Metropolitan Region. iForest 7: 423-433. - doi: 10.3832/ifor1173-007

Academic Editor

Marco Borghetti

Paper history

Received: Oct 31, 2013
Accepted: Mar 19, 2014

First online: May 19, 2014
Publication Date: Dec 01, 2014
Publication Time: 2.03 months

Breakdown by View Type

(Waiting for server response...)

Article Usage

Total Article Views: 12699
(from publication date up to now)

Breakdown by View Type
HTML Page Views: 9312
Abstract Page Views: 285
PDF Downloads: 2165
Citation/Reference Downloads: 68
XML Downloads: 869

Web Metrics
Days since publication: 2011
Overall contacts: 12699
Avg. contacts per week: 44.20

Article Citations

Article citations are based on data periodically collected from the Clarivate Web of Science web site
(last update: Aug 2019)

Total number of cites (since 2014): 8
Average cites per year: 1.33

 

Publication Metrics

by Dimensions ©

Articles citing this article

List of the papers citing this article based on CrossRef Cited-by.

 
(1)
Antrop M (2004)
Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (1-4): 9-26.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(2)
Appleton J (1975)
The experience of landscape. Wiley, London, UK, pp. 296.
Gscholar
(3)
Balling JD, Falk JH (1982)
Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior 14 (1): 5-28.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(4)
Baum C, Leinweber P, Weih M, Lamersdorf N, Dimitriou I (2009)
Effects of short rotation coppice with willows and poplar on soil ecology. Landbauforschung vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research 3 (59): 183-196.
Online | Gscholar
(5)
Bemmann A (2010)
AGROWOOD. Kurzumtriebsplantagen in Deutschland und Europäische perspektiven [AGROWOOD. Short rotation coppice in Germany and European perspectives]. Weißensee-Verlag (Ökologie), Berlin, Germany, pp. 342. [in German]
Gscholar
(6)
BfN (2012a)
Landschaftssteckbriefe [Landscape characteristics]. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, web site. [in German]
Online | Gscholar
(7)
BfN (2012b)
Landschaftstypen [Landscape types]. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, web site. [in German]
Online | Gscholar
(8)
BfN (2012c)
Schutzwürdige Landschaften [Landscapes deserving protection]. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, web site. [in German]
Online | Gscholar
(9)
BMU (2008)
Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage [Environmental awareness in Germany. Results of a representative public survey]. German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, pp. 62. [in German]
Online | Gscholar
(10)
Burggraaff P, Kleefeld KD (1998)
Historische Kulturlandschaft und Kulturlandschaftselemente Teil I. Bundesübersicht. Teil II: Leitfaden [Historical cultural landscapes and cultural landscape elements]. Angewandte Landschaftsökologie 20, Bonn-Bad Godesberg, Germany, pp. 320. [in German]
Gscholar
(11)
Dockerty T, Lovett A, Appleton K, Sünnenberg G (2009)
Public attitudes to biomass energy crops and their visual impacts. RELU biomass sub-project report. University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK pp. 84.
Online | Gscholar
(12)
European Commission (2007)
Growing regions, growing Europe. Fourth report on economic and social cohesion, Office for Official Publications, European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 200.
Gscholar
(13)
Federal Statistical Office (2010)
Destatis regional atlas. Joint product by the statistical offices of the Federation and the Länder, Web site.
Online | Gscholar
(14)
Franke U (2008)
Thema: Landschaftsbild. Landschaft lesen. Impulse zur Landschaftsästhetik, Naturwahrnehmung und Landschaftsbildbewertung für die norddeutsche Kulturlandschaft [Topic: Visual Landscape. Reading Landscape. Impulses for landscape aesthetics, perception of nature and landscape character assessment for the northern German cultural landscape]. Oceano, Schwerin, Germany, pp. 94. [in German]
Online | Gscholar
(15)
Hendriks K, Stobbelaar DJ, van Mansvelt JD (2000)
The appearance of agriculture: an assessment of the quality of landscape of both organic and conventional horticultural farms in West Friesland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 (1-2): 157-175.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(16)
Hunziker M, Felber P, Gehring K, Buchecker M, Bauer N, Kienast F (2008)
Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Results of two empirical studies in Switzerland. Mountain Research and Development 28: 140-147.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(17)
Köhler B, Preiss A (2000)
Erfassung und Bewertung des Landschaftsbildes. Grundlagen und Methoden zur Bearbeitung des Schutzguts “Vielfalt, Eigenart und Schönheit von Natur und Landschaft“ in der Planung [Assessment of the visual landscape. Basics and methods to handle “diversity, peculiarity and beauty of nature and landscape” in planning practice.]. Informationsdienst Naturschutz Niedersachsen 20 (1): 1-60. [in German]
Gscholar
(18)
Kühne O (2006)
Landschaft in der Postmoderne. Das Beispiel des Saarlandes [Postmodern Landscape. The example of the Saarland]. Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden, Germany, pp. 348. [in German]
Gscholar
(19)
Lindemann-Matthies P, 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 (2): 99-109.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(20)
Lindenau G (2002)
Die Entwicklung der Agrarlandschaften in Südbayern und ihre Beurteilung durch die Bevölkerung [The development of the agricultural areas in southern Bavaria and their appreciation by the public]. Franziska Land Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 304. [in German]
Gscholar
(21)
Nohl W (2001)
Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception-preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 54 (1-4): 223-237.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(22)
Nitsch J, Pregger T, Scholz Y, Naegler T, Sterner M, Gerhardt N, van Oehsen A, Pape C, Saint-Drenan, YM (2010)
Langfristszenarien und Strategien für den Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland bei Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in Europa und global. Leitstudie 2010 [Long-term scenarios and strategies for the expansion of renewable energies in Germany]. DLR, Fraunhofer IWES, IFNE, pp. 201. [in German]
Gscholar
(23)
Palang H, Sooväli H, Antrop M, Setten G (2010)
European rural landscapes. Persistence and change in a globalising environment. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 482.
Gscholar
(24)
Pott R (1999)
Lüneburger Heide, Wendland und Nationalpark Mittleres Elbtal [Lüneburg Heath, Wendland and national park Mittleres Elbtal]. Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany, pp. 256. [in German]
Gscholar
(25)
Schüpbach B, Junge X, Briegel R, Lindemann-Matthies P, Walter T (2009)
Aesthetische Bewertung landwirtschaftlicher Kulturen durch die Bevölkerung [Aesthetic assessment of agricultural crops by the public]. ART-Schriftenreihe 10, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 122. [in German]
Gscholar
(26)
Statistical Office North (2009)
Statistical Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein. Web site.
Online | Gscholar
(27)
Strohm K, Schweinle J, Liesebach M, Osterburg B, Rödl A, Baum S, Nieberg H, Bolte A, Walter K (2012)
Kurzumtriebsplantagen aus ökologischer und ökonomischer Sicht [Short rotation coppice from an ecological and economic perspective]. Arbeitsberichte aus der vTI-Agrarökonomie, 2012.6, Braunschweig, Germany, pp. 86. [in German]
Gscholar
(28)
Thrän D, Edel M, Pfeifer J, Ponitka J, Rode M, Knispel S (2011)
Identifizierung strategischer Hemmnisse und Entwicklung von Lösungsansätzen zur Reduzierung der Nutzungskonkurrenz beim weiteren Ausbau der Biomassenutzung [Identification of strategic barriers and development of possible approaches to reduce competing uses in the bioenergy sector]. DBFZ Report Nr. 4 (4), Leipzig, Germany, pp. 193. [in German]
Gscholar
(29)
TLL (2007)
Abschlussbericht Verbundvorhaben: Energiepflanzen für die Biogasproduktion [Final report: Energy crops for biogas production]. Agricultural Institute of the State of Thüringen, Jena, Germany, pp. 72. [in German]
Gscholar
(30)
Tuan YF (1977)
Space and place. The perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, USA, pp. 496.
Gscholar
(31)
Tveit MS (2009)
Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (9): 2882-2888.
CrossRef | Gscholar
(32)
Ulrich RS (1986)
Human responses to vegetation and landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 13: 29-44.
CrossRef | Gscholar
 

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website