IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i13p7426-d587449.html

The Landscape Change in the Alps—What Postcards Have to Say about Aesthetic Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Clara Tattoni

    (DAGRI Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agrarie, Alimentari Ambientali e Forestali, University of Florence, 50121 Firenze, Italy
    TiDES, Institute of Sustainable Tourism and Economic Development, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35001 Las Palmas, Spain)

  • Gianluca Grilli

    (Department of Economics Division Dublin, Economic and Social Research Institute, D06 KN72 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Jorge Araña

    (DAGRI Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agrarie, Alimentari Ambientali e Forestali, University of Florence, 50121 Firenze, Italy)

  • Marco Ciolli

    (Forest Ecology Laboratory, DICAM, University of Trento, 38122 Trento, Italy
    C3A—Centro Agricoltura Alimenti Ambiente, 38010 San Michele all’Adige, Italy)

Abstract

Land use changes in the Alps over the last few decades have been characterised by a significant increase in forest coverage as a result of the abandonment of marginal agricultural sites. Natural afforestation and species protection laws affected the ecosystem, and therefore the services provided by the mountain environment, including landscape structure and aesthetics, changed. This work assess the changes in the ecosystem services offered by forests since 1954 in a region of the Italian Alps. Some ES were estimated in this work with GIS, and others were taken from the literature or the authors’ previous works. Since the 1950s, forest ecosystem services such as growing stock, protection from hydro-geological hazards and carbon storage have increased. Deer and other forest species have risen in number. On the other hand, there has been a depletion of open space for priority habitats and species such as black grouse and capercaillie. Old postcards were used to understand land use change and people’s aesthetic preferences. To determine people’s preferences for the landscape, we used records of over 300,000 postcards, sold during nearly two decades. The most often chosen postcard portrayed a landscape of the 1970s with a mix of forest and open space, different from the scenario that the buyers could observe. The sales records for over 20 years of postcard business and the dates of the postcards that we obtained in this research allowed us to perform a quantitative analysis of landscape preferences. The main subject of the photo was a good predictor of the number of postcards sold, according to generalised linear models (GLM); and postcards of overly exploited landscapes, dense forest coverage or buildings were significantly less likely to be chosen. Artificially reinstating open areas will boost biodiversity and could recreate a landscape that resembles the historical agro-ecosystem without interfering with the forest’s other functions. These findings will help managers and policy makers evaluate cultural ecosystem resources in the face of changing mountain landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Clara Tattoni & Gianluca Grilli & Jorge Araña & Marco Ciolli, 2021. "The Landscape Change in the Alps—What Postcards Have to Say about Aesthetic Preference," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7426-:d:587449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7426/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7426/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Giulia Cantiani & Clemens Geitner & Christine Haida & Federica Maino & Clara Tattoni & Daniele Vettorato & Marco Ciolli, 2016. "Balancing Economic Development and Environmental Conservation for a New Governance of Alpine Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Foltête, Jean-Christophe & Litot, Jean-Baptiste, 2015. "Scenic postcards as objects for spatial analysis of tourist regions," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 17-28.
    3. Peña, Lorena & Casado-Arzuaga, Izaskun & Onaindia, Miren, 2015. "Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 108-118.
    4. Bruno Marques & Claire Freeman & Lynette Carter & Maibritt Pedersen Zari, 2020. "Sense of Place and Belonging in Developing Culturally Appropriate Therapeutic Environments: A Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, November.
    5. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & De Marco, Claudio & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2014. "Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 170-179.
    6. Gret-Regamey, Adrienne & Kytzia, Susanne, 2007. "Integrating the valuation of ecosystem services into the Input-Output economics of an Alpine region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 786-798, September.
    7. Annamaria Bianchi & Silvia Biffignandi, 2017. "Representativeness in panel surveys," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 126-143, April.
    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. Bussola, Francesca & Falco, Enzo & Aukes, Ewert & Stegmaier, Peter & Sorge, Stefan & Ciolli, Marco & Gagliano, Caterina & Geneletti, Davide, 2021. "Piloting a more inclusive governance innovation strategy for forest ecosystem services management in Primiero, Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).

    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. Francesco Riccioli & Roberto Fratini & Claudio Fagarazzi & Mario Cozzi & Mauro Viccaro & Severino Romano & Duccio Rocchini & Salomon Espinosa Diaz & Clara Tattoni, 2020. "Mapping the Recreational Value of Coppices’ Management Systems in Tuscany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Uta Schirpke & Rocco Scolozzi & Riccardo Da Re & Mauro Masiero & Davide Pellegrino & Davide Marino, 2020. "Enhancing outdoor recreation and biodiversity through payments for ecosystem services: emerging potentials from selected Natura 2000 sites in Italy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2045-2067, March.
    3. Schirpke, Uta & Meisch, Claude & Marsoner, Thomas & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2018. "Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 336-350.
    4. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Zheng Zang, 2021. "Conceptual Model of Ecosystem Service Flows from Carbon Dioxide to Blue Carbon in Coastal Wetlands: An Empirical Study Based on Yancheng, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, April.
    6. Anna Misztal & Magdalena Kowalska & Anita Fajczak-Kowalska & Otakar Strunecky, 2021. "Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization in the Context of Macroeconomic Stabilization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Irina Iulia Năstase & Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Felix Kienast, 2019. "Landscape Preferences and Distance Decay Analysis for Mapping the Recreational Potential of an Urban Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-19, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    10. Alberto González-García & Ignacio Palomo & Anna Codemo & Mirco Rodeghiero & Titouan Dubo & Améline Vallet & Sandra Lavorel, 2025. "Co-benefits of nature-based solutions exceed the costs of implementation," Post-Print hal-04963043, HAL.
    11. Charles, Michael & Ziv, Guy & Bohrer, Gil & Bakshi, Bhavik R., 2020. "Connecting air quality regulating ecosystem services with beneficiaries through quantitative serviceshed analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    12. Chen, Wanxu & Chi, Guangqing & Li, Jiangfeng, 2020. "The spatial aspect of ecosystem services balance and its determinants," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Hermes, Johannes & Albert, Christian & von Haaren, Christina, 2018. "Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 296-307.
    14. Heejeong Yun & Dongjin Kang & Youngeun Kang, 2022. "Outdoor recreation planning and management considering FROS and carrying capacities: a case study of forest wetland in Yeongam-gum, South Korea," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 502-526, January.
    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. Yunzi Yang & Yangyi Wu & Hongzan Jiao, 2025. "Assessing Urban Park Equity in China Through Supply and Demand Balance: A Case Study of Wuhan City, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-20, March.
    17. Uta Schirpke & Lukas Egarter Vigl & Erich Tasser & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2019. "Analyzing Spatial Congruencies and Mismatches between Supply, Demand and Flow of Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    18. Yue Wang & Qi Fu & Tinghui Wang & Mengfan Gao & Jinhua Chen, 2022. "Multiscale Characteristics and Drivers of the Bundles of Ecosystem Service Budgets in the Su-Xi-Chang Region, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-26, October.
    19. Roxanne Suzette Lorilla & Konstantinos Poirazidis & Stamatis Kalogirou & Vassilis Detsis & Aristotelis Martinis, 2018. "Assessment of the Spatial Dynamics and Interactions among Multiple Ecosystem Services to Promote Effective Policy Making across Mediterranean Island Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-28, September.
    20. Chakraborty, Shamik & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Blasiak, Robert, 2020. "Multiple values for the management and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7426-:d:587449. 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.