IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i12p1306-d689017.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping Landscape Values and Conflicts through the Optics of Different User Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Hana Vavrouchová

    (Department of Applied and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemedelska 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Petra Fukalová

    (Department of Applied and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemedelska 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Hana Svobodová

    (Department of Geography, Faculty of Education, Masaryk University, Porici 7, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Jan Oulehla

    (Department of Applied and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemedelska 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Pavla Pokorná

    (Department of Applied and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemedelska 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

The paper presents the results of the study on participative mapping of landscape values and conflicts and a subsequent interpretation of the indicated localities from respondents’ point of view. The study focused on younger groups of landscape users—lower-secondary-school students (aged 11–15) and university students (aged 20–25)—in comparison with experts’ points of view. The research presumed that the perception of landscape values and issues are determined by age, level of education and by experience in the field. The study was conducted in the southeastern area of the Czech Republic (49° N, 16° E) via online data collection. Based on the obtained records, we conclude that, in terms of the typology of the valuable and problematic locations, the individual groups of respondents did not differ significantly and the selection of location types was similar across all groups. Lower-secondary-school students rather identified cultural values associated with everyday activities, and the descriptions contained emotional overtones. University students preferred natural values associated with formal values based on general consensus or conflicts associated with society-wide impacts. The experts base served as the benchmark for other groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Hana Vavrouchová & Petra Fukalová & Hana Svobodová & Jan Oulehla & Pavla Pokorná, 2021. "Mapping Landscape Values and Conflicts through the Optics of Different User Groups," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:12:p:1306-:d:689017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/12/1306/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/12/1306/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    2. Bruce Mitchell, 2005. "Participatory Partnerships: Engaging and Empowering to Enhance Environmental Management and Quality of Life?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 123-144, March.
    3. Šťastná, Milada & Vaishar, Antonín, 2020. "Values of rural landscape: The case study Chlum u Třeboně (Bohemia)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Mona Seymour & Theadora B. Trindle, 2015. "Use Dimensions of an Alley Revitalization Project," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 586-592, July.
    5. Garcia, Xavier & Benages-Albert, Marta & Vall-Casas, Pere, 2018. "Landscape conflict assessment based on a mixed methods analysis of qualitative PPGIS data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 112-124.
    6. Lee, Cha-Hee, 2020. "Understanding rural landscape for better resident-led management: Residents’ perceptions on rural landscape as everyday landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yue Chen & Qikang Zhong & Bo Li, 2023. "Positive or Negative Viewpoint Determines the Overall Scenic Beauty of a Scene: A Landscape Perception Evaluation Based on a Panoramic View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Bastian Bertzky & Colleen Corrigan & Susan Snyman, 2022. "Planning Effective Conservation Landscapes for Nature and People: An Editorial Overview," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-4, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wai Soe Zin & Aya Suzuki & Kelvin S.-H. Peh & Alexandros Gasparatos, 2019. "Economic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services from Recreation in Popa Mountain National Park, Myanmar: A Comparison of Two Rapid Valuation Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    3. Ming-Kuang Chung & Dau-Jye Lu & Bor-Wen Tsai & Kuei-Tien Chou, 2019. "Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Víctor García-Díez & Marina García-Llorente & José A. González, 2020. "Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Madrid: Insights for Landscape Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    6. Arki, Vesa & Koskikala, Joni & Fagerholm, Nora & Kisanga, Danielson & Käyhkö, Niina, 2020. "Associations between local land use/land cover and place-based landscape service patterns in rural Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Loc, Ho Huu & Park, Edward & Thu, Tran Ngoc & Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong & Can, Nguyen Trong, 2021. "An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    8. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Jennifer Hodbod & Emma Tebbs & Kristofer Chan & Shubhechchha Sharma, 2019. "Integrating Participatory Methods and Remote Sensing to Enhance Understanding of Ecosystem Service Dynamics Across Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-30, August.
    10. Ziyu Jia & Yan Jiao & Wei Zhang & Zheng Chen, 2022. "Rural Tourism Competitiveness and Development Mode, a Case Study from Chinese Township Scale Using Integrated Multi-Source Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Sonja Kivinen & Kaarina Vartiainen & Timo Kumpula, 2018. "People and Post-Mining Environments: PPGIS Mapping of Landscape Values, Knowledge Needs, and Future Perspectives in Northern Finland," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-23, December.
    12. Kulczyk, Sylwia & Woźniak, Edyta & Derek, Marta, 2018. "Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated model of recreational ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 491-501.
    13. Amalia Vaneska Palacio Buendía & Yolanda Pérez-Albert & David Serrano Giné, 2021. "Mapping Landscape Perception: An Assessment with Public Participation Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    14. Juan A. García-Esparza & Pablo Altaba Tena, 2018. "Time, Cognition, and Approach: Sustainable Tourism Strategies for Abandoned Vernacular Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.
    15. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    17. Karly Bitsura-Meszaros & Erin Seekamp & Mae Davenport & Jordan W. Smith, 2019. "A PGIS-Based Climate Change Risk Assessment Process for Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Dependent Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, June.
    18. Liu, Hongxiao & Hamel, Perrine & Tardieu, Léa & Remme, Roy P. & Han, Baolong & Ren, Hai, 2022. "A geospatial model of nature-based recreation for urban planning: Case study of Paris, France," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    19. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    20. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:12:p:1306-:d:689017. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.