IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i1p263-d127806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dimensions of Landscape Stewardship across Europe: Landscape Values, Place Attachment, Awareness, and Personal Responsibility

Author

Listed:
  • María García-Martín

    (Chair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106 Freiburg, Germany)

  • Tobias Plieninger

    (Social-Ecological Interactions in Agricultural Systems, University of Kassel and University of Göttingen, Steinstr. 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany)

  • Claudia Bieling

    (Societal Transition and Agriculture (430b), Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany)

Abstract

Improved perceptions towards landscape stewardship, at the local level, could help achieve more sustainable futures. However, little research has been done on the dimensions of landscape stewardship underlying such perceptions. Here we look at the perception of landscape values, place attachment, awareness of the adverse consequences human action might have on landscapes, and ascription of personal responsibility across Europe as well as how these dimensions are connected and influenced by personal capabilities and socio-cultural contexts. We conducted a cross-site comparison study, in six European municipalities, using a survey to capture residents’ levels of awareness, responsibility, and attachment as derived from a set of statements. Respondents were also asked to indicate the values they perceive in the local landscape from a given list. The data was analysed by combining frequency analysis, factor analysis, and contingency tables. In our sample of 726 respondents, stronger awareness was related to stronger ascription of personal responsibility, but a connection to place attachment was not clear. Perception of multiple landscape values was related to stronger awareness, responsibility, and place attachment. Meanwhile, awareness and responsibility were influenced by respondents’ occupation, levels of income and education, and socio-cultural context, whereas place attachment was linked to their relationship to the local area. We conclude that enhancing commitment towards landscape stewardship, at the local level, requires efforts focused on making environmental education more universal, implementing green options accessible to everyone, and people experientially engaging more actively with their local landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • María García-Martín & Tobias Plieninger & Claudia Bieling, 2018. "Dimensions of Landscape Stewardship across Europe: Landscape Values, Place Attachment, Awareness, and Personal Responsibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-27, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:1:p:263-:d:127806
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/263/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/263/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kumar, Manasi & Kumar, Pushpam, 2008. "Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 808-819, February.
    2. S E Eden, 1993. "Individual Environmental Responsibility and its Role in Public Environmentalism," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 25(12), pages 1743-1758, December.
    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. Wei-Ta Fang & Ulas Kaplan & Yi-Te Chiang & Chun-Teng Cheng, 2020. "Is Religiosity Related to Environmentally-Protective Behaviors Among Taiwanese Christians? A Structural Equation Modeling Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Fockaert, Lysander & Mathijs, Erik & Vranken, Liesbet, 2021. "Local Support for Agri-Environmental Measures and the Role of Knowledge and Environmental Attitudes," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315153, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Michalia Sakellariou & Basil E. Psiloglou & Christos Giannakopoulos & Photini V. Mylona, 2021. "Integration of Abandoned Lands in Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of Terraced Landscape Re-Cultivation in Mediterranean Island Conditions," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Valentina Carfora & Giulia Buscicchio & Patrizia Catellani, 2021. "Integrating Personal and Pro-Environmental Motives to Explain Italian Women’s Purchase of Sustainable Clothing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-22, September.
    5. Ching-Cheng Shen & Dan Wang & Jennifer Pasion Loverio, 2022. "Influence of Consumer Landscape on Place Attachment in Agritourism—The Case of Huatung, Taiwan," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, September.
    6. Xiaoyang Zhu & Shang-Chia Chiou, 2022. "A Study on the Sustainable Development of Historic District Landscapes Based on Place Attachment among Tourists: A Case Study of Taiping Old Street, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-25, September.

    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. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    3. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    4. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    5. Houdet, Joël & Trommetter, Michel & Weber, Jacques, 2012. "Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-46.
    6. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.
    7. Corbera, Esteve & Soberanis, Carmen González & Brown, Katrina, 2009. "Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 743-761, January.
    8. Singh, Neera M., 2015. "Payments for ecosystem services and the gift paradigm: Sharing the burden and joy of environmental care," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 53-61.
    9. Doyle, Martin W. & Yates, Andrew J., 2010. "Stream ecosystem service markets under no-net-loss regulation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 820-827, February.
    10. Wakita, Kazumi & Shen, Zhonghua & Oishi, Taro & Yagi, Nobuyuki & Kurokura, Hisashi & Furuya, Ken, 2014. "Human utility of marine ecosystem services and behavioural intentions for marine conservation in Japan," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 53-60.
    11. Suliman Yusif & Yukun Cao & Abdelazim Eissa & Elsamoal Elzaki, 2023. "Economic Assessment for the Recreation Value of Al-Sunut Forest Reserve in Khartoum State, Sudan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Vieira, Felipe A.S. & Bragagnolo, Chiara & Correia, Ricardo A. & Malhado, Ana C.M. & Ladle, Richard J., 2018. "A salience index for integrating multiple user perspectives in cultural ecosystem service assessments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PB), pages 182-192.
    13. Junga Lee & Byoung-Suk Kweon & Christopher D. Ellis & Sang-Woo Lee, 2020. "Assessing the Social Value of Ecosystem Services for Resilient Riparian Greenway Planning and Management in an Urban Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, May.
    14. Asah, Stanley T. & Guerry, Anne D. & Blahna, Dale J. & Lawler, Joshua J., 2014. "Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: Human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 180-186.
    15. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    16. Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Maltby, Lorraine & Moggridge, Helen L., 2017. "Awareness of greater numbers of ecosystem services affects preferences for floodplain management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 138-146.
    17. Andersson, Erik & Tengö, Maria & McPhearson, Timon & Kremer, Peleg, 2015. "Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 165-168.
    18. Pröpper, Michael & Haupts, Felix, 2014. "The culturality of ecosystem services. Emphasizing process and transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 28-35.
    19. Sangha, Kamaljit K. & Russell-Smith, Jeremy & Morrison, Scott C. & Costanza, Robert & Edwards, Andrew, 2017. "Challenges for valuing ecosystem services from an Indigenous estate in northern Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 167-178.
    20. Perevochtchikova, Maria & Rojo Negrete, Iskra Alejandra, 2015. "The perceptions about payment schemes for ecosystem services: Study case of the San Miguel and Santo Tomás Ajusco community, Mexico," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 27-36.

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:1:p:263-:d:127806. 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.