Abstract
Agroforestry intercropping systems (AIS), in which crops grow between widely spaced tree rows, can address several land-use challenges in regions of agricultural intensification and decline. Since their contribution to landscape sustainability depends on their coherence with the sociocultural dimension of landscapes, understanding the potential impacts of AIS on rural residents becomes necessary to inform planning processes and optimize their designs. We scrutinized the appreciation of landscapes featuring AIS for rural residents of two contrasted agricultural regions of Québec (Canada), evaluated the influence of some individual characteristics and AIS design features on these appreciations, and elicited the reasons justifying landscape appreciations. Data was collected using an online questionnaire. We compared landscape scenarios featuring AIS designs to landscapes featuring common land-uses using a 10-point Likert scale. Open-ended questions elicited the reasons underlying respondents’ landscape appreciation and closed questions captured their sociodemographic profile and their attitude toward the environment. A total of 161 rural residents filled the questionnaire. The multivariate analysis showed no significant effect of any of the sociodemographic characteristics tested. The statistical analyses revealed that AIS are similarly appreciated to rural landscapes featuring forests, fallows, or cultivated fields. AIS appreciation varied with diversity and row spacing, but in intertwined, regionally contrasted ways. The qualitative analyses showed that the linear arrangement of trees, associated with artificiality, was unappreciated by respondents. Our results highlight that AIS may be socially coherent in diversified rural landscapes. Design recommendations should maximize diversity while attenuating the row effect.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altieri M, Nicholls C, Henao A (2015) Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron Sustain Dev 35(3):869–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2
Angelstam P, Munoz-Rojas J, Pinto-Correia T (2019) Landscape concepts and approaches foster learning about ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 34:1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00866-z
Antrop M (2000) Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 77:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00089-4
Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan 70:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.002
Arriaza M, Cañas-Ortega JF, Cañas-Madueño JA, Ruiz-Aviles P (2004) Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 69:115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029
Arts B, Buizer M, Horlings L, Ingram V, van Oosten C, Opdam P (2017) Landscape approaches: a state-of-the-art review. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:439–463. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060932
Barrière O, Prost C, Ravena-Cañete V, Douzal V, Fargette M, Aubin JP (2019) Introductory chapter: an interweaving to be formalized, the biosphere faced with the relationship between the human and the non-human. In: Barrière O et al (eds) Coviability of social and ecological systems: reconnecting mankind to the biosphere in an era of global change. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78497-7_1
Benjamin K, Bouchard A, Domon G (2007) Abandoned farmlands as components of rural landscapes: an analysis of perceptions and representations. Landsc Urban Plan 83:228–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.009
Benjamin K, Bouchard A, Domon G (2008) Managing abandoned farmland: the need to link biological and sociological aspects. Environ Manag 42 (4):603–619
Bergeron M, Lacombe S, Bradley RL, Whalen J, Cogliastro A, Jutras MF, Arp P (2011) Reduced soil nutrient leaching following the establishment of tree-based intercropping systems in eastern Canada. Agrofor Syst 83:321–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9402-7
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2002) Introduction. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511541957.003
Bradley R, Olivier A, Thevathasan N, Whalen J (2008) Environmental and economic benefits of tree-based intercropping systems. Policy Options 29:46-49. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/the-dollar/environmental-and-economic-benefits-of-tree-based-intercropping-systems/. Accessed 26 Apr 2020
Brisson G (2006) L’homme des bois d’Anticosti. La figure du guide de chasse et les conceptions sociales de la forêt québécoise. Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française 60:163–189. https://doi.org/10.7202/014598ar
Brush R, Chenoweth RE, Barman T (2000) Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 47:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00073-0
Bryant CR (1984) The recent evolution of farming landscapes in urban-centred regions. Landsc Plan 11:307–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(84)90027-3
Burel F, Baudry J (1995) Social, aesthetic and ecological aspects of hedgerows in rural landscapes as a framework for greenways. Landsc Urban Plan 33:327–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)02026-C
Burton RJF (2004) Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s’ eyes: towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociol Rural 44(2):195–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00270
Burton RJF (2012) Understanding farmers’ aesthetic preference for tidy agricultural landscapes: a Bourdieusian perspective. Landsc Res 37(1):51–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.559311
Carvalho-Ribeiro SM, Lovett A (2011) Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal. For Policy Econ 13(1):46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.09.003
Carvalho-Ribeiro S, Paracchini ML, Schüpbach B, Ode Sang A, Vanderheyden V, Southern A, Jones P, Contreras B, Riordan T (2016) Assessing the ability of rural agrarian areas to provide cultural ecosystem services (CES): a multi scale social indicator framework (MSIF). Land Use Policy 53:8–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.024
Concu N, Atzeni G (2012) Conflicting preferences among tourists and residents. Tour Manag 33:1293–1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.009
Côté MA, Gilbert D, Nadeau S (2015) Characterizing the profiles, motivations and behaviours of Quebec’s forest owners. For Policy Econ 59:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.004
Dakin SL (2003) There’s more to landscape than meets the eye: towards inclusive landscape assessment in resource and environmental management. Can Geogr 47:185–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0064.t01-1-00003
De Groot W, van den Born RJG (2003) Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands. Landsc Urban Plan 63(3):127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00184-6
de Vaus D (2002) Analyzing social science data: 50 key problems in data analysis. SAGE Publishing, London, p 393
Dearden P (1985) Philosophy, theory and method in landscape evaluation. Can Geogr 29:263–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.1985.tb00371
Dramstad WE, Tveit MS, Fjellstad WJ, Fry GLA (2006) Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc Urban Plan 78(4):465–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006
Düzgünes E, Demirel Ö (2015) Evaluation of rural areas in terms of landscape quality: Salacik Village (Trabzon/Turkey) example. Environ Monit Assess 187:310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4544-0
Falk JH, Balling JD (2010) Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environ Behav 42:479–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509341244
Filova L, Vojar J, Svoboda K, Sklenicka P (2015) The effect of landscape type and landscape elements on public visual preferences: ways to use knowledge in the context of landscape planning. J Environ Plan Manag 58:2037–2055. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.973481
Flamand-Hubert M (2015) “L’homme en face d’une nature qui le repousse”: forêt et territoire dans la littérature de la première moitié du XXe siècle. Histoire de l’Amérique française 68:301–324. https://doi.org/10.7202/014598ar
Flint CG, Kunze I, Muhar A, Yoshida Y, Penker M (2013) Exploring empirical typologies of human–nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landsc Urban Plan 120:208–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002
Franco D, Franco D, Mannino I, Zanetto G (2003) The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: the role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landsc Urban Plan 62:119–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00127-5
Frank S, Fürst C, Kschke L, Witt A, Makeschin F (2013) Assessment of landscape aesthetics—validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecol Indic 32:222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.026
García de Jalón S, Burgess PJ, Graves A, Moreno G, McAdam J, Pottier E, Novak S, Bondesan V, Mosquera-Losada R, Crous-Durán J, Palma JHN, Paulo JA, Oliveira TS, Cirou E, Hannachi Y, Pantera A, Wartelle R, Kay S, Malignier N, Van Lerberghe P, Tsonkova P, Mirck J, Rois M, Kongsted AG, Thenail C, Luske B, Berg S, Gosme M, Vityi A (2018) How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects among stakeholders. Agrofor Syst 92:829–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0116-3
Garrett HE, McGraw RL, Walter WD (2009) Alley cropping practices. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 133–162
Görg C (2007) Landscape governance—the “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places. Geoforum 38(5):954–966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.004
Grala RK, Tyndall JC, Mize CW (2010) Impact of field windbreaks on visual appearance of agricultural lands. Agrofor Syst 80:411–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-010-9335-6
Graves AR, Burgess PJ, Liagre F, Pisanelli A, Paris P, Moreno G, Bellido M, Mayus M, Postma M, Schindler B, Mantzanas K, Papanastasis VP, Dupraz C (2010) Farmer perceptions of silvoarable systems in seven European countries. In: Rigueiro-Rodriguez A, McAdam J, Mosquera-Losada MR (eds) Agroforestry in Europe. Advances in agroforestry, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8272-6_4
Graves AR, Burgess PJ, Liagre F, Dupraz C (2017) Farmer perception of benefits, constraints and opportunities for silvoarable systems: preliminary insights from Bedfordshire, England. Outlook Agric 46:74–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727017691173
Guimond L, Simard M (2010) Gentrification and neo-rural populations in the Québec countryside: representations of various actors. J Rural Stud 26:449–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.06.002
Harding SP, Burch SE, Wemelsfelder F (2017) The assessment of landscape expressivity: a free choice profiling approach. PLoS ONE 12(1):e0169507. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169507
Herzog TR, Herbert EJ, Kaplan R, Crooks CL (2000) Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environ Behav 32:301–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916500323002
Howley P (2011) Landscape aesthetics: assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecol Econ 72:161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026
ISQ (2017a) 16—Montérégie and its regional county municipalities (RCMs). Information capsule by RCM. http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/profils/region_16/region_16_00.htm. Accessed 27 July 2018
ISQ (2017b) 03—Capitale-Nationale and its regional county municipalities (RCMs). Information capsule by RCM. http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/profils/region_03/region_03_00.htm. Accessed 27 July 2018
Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7
Junge X, Schüpbach B, Walter B, Schmid B, Lindemann-Matthies P (2015) Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landsc Urban Plan 133:67–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.010
Kaplan S, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Karasov O, Vieira AAB, Külvik M, Chervanyov I (2020) Landscape coherence revisited: GIS-based mapping in relation to scenic values and preferences estimated with geolocated social media data. Ecol Indic 111:105973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105973
Katelborn BJ, Bjerke T (2002) Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc Urban Plan 59:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2
Kuiper J (1998) Landscape quality based upon diversity, coherence and continuity. Landsc Urban Plan 43(1):91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00075-9
Kuper R (2013) Here and gone: the visual effects of seasonal changes in plant and vegetative characteristics on landscape preference criteria. Landsc J 32(1):65–78. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.32.1.65
Kuper R (2017) Evaluations of landscape preference, complexity, and coherence for designed digital landscape models. Landsc Urban Plan 157:407–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.002
Laroche G, Domon G, Gélinas N, Doyon M, Olivier A (2019) Integrating agroforestry intercropping systems in contrasted agricultural landscapes: a SWOT-AHP analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions. Agrofor Syst 93:947–959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0191-0
Lescourret F, Madga D, Richard G, Baudry J, Doussan I, Dumont B, Lefèvre F, Litrico I, Martin-Clouaire R, Montuelle B, Pellerin S, Pantegenest M, Tancoigne E, Thomas A, Guyomard H, Soussana JF (2015) A social–ecological approach to managing multiple agro-ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.04.001
Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, p 814
Mander Ü, Uuemaa E, Roosaaare J, Aunap R, Antrop M (2010) Coherence and fragmentation of landscape patterns as characterized by correlograms: a case study of Estonia. Landsc Urban Plan 94:31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.015
MAPAQ—Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (2014) Les Maskoutains. https://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/Regions/monteregie/lamonteregie/MRCMaskoutains/Pages/mrcdesmaskoutains.aspx. Accessed 23 Oct 2019
MAPAQ—Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation du Québec (2019) MRC de Charlevoix-Est. https://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Regions/Capitale-Nationale/Fiche_MRC_Charlevoix-Est_accessible.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2019
Matloch J (2018) The assessment of German cultural landscapes: evidence from three regions located in the metropolitan area of Hamburg. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21416-6
Morgan CJ, Olynk Widmar NJ, Wilcox MD, Croney CC (2018) Perceptions of agriculture and food corporate social responsibility. J Food Prod Mark 24(2):146–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1266550
Mzoughi N (2011) Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: do moral and social concerns matter? Ecol Econ 70(8):1536–1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.016
Nassauer JI (1988) The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. Hortic Sci 23(6): 973–977. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/49345. Accessed 15 May 2017
Naveh Z (2001) Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 57(3):269–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00209-2
Nederhof AJ (1985) Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. Eur J Soc Psychol 15(3):263–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
Ode A, Fry G, Tveit MS, Messager P, Miller D (2009) Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J Environ Manag 90:375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
Oles T (2016) Wine trails as organizational pathway toward landscape coherence: the case of the Finger Lakes region, New York, USA. Geogr Tidsskr Dan J Geogr 116(1):24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2015.1111767
Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landsc Ecol 18:113–126. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024429715253
Oreszczyn S, Lane A (2000) The meaning of hedgerows in the English landscape: different stakeholder perspectives and the implications for future hedge management. J Environ Manag 60:101–118. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0365
Paquette S, Domon G (2003) Trends in rural landscape development and sociodemographic recomposition in southern Quebec (Canada). Landsc Urban Plan 55:215–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00154-2
Paquette S, Poullaouec-Gonidec P, Domon G (2009) Québec landscape management guide: reading, understanding, and enhancing the landscape. Government of Québec, Québec. https://www.mcc.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/documents/publications/guide-gestion-paysage-ANG.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2020
Partelow S (2018) A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecol Soc 23(4):36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10594-230436
Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative evaluation methods, 4th edn. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks
Rambonilaza M, Dachary-Bernard J (2007) Land-use planning and public preferences: what can we learn from choice experiment method? Landsc Urban Plan 83(2007):318–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.013
Reed J, Deakin L, Sunderland T (2014) What are ‘Integrated Landscape Approaches’ and how effectively have they been implemented in the tropics: a systematic map protocol. Environ Evid 4:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-4-2
Rigueiro-Rogriguez A, Fernandez-Nunez E, Gonzalez-Hernandez P, McAdam JH, Maria-Rosa ML (2009) Agroforestry systems in Europe: productive, ecological and social perspectives. In: Rigueiro-Rogriguez A, McAdam JH, Maria-Rosa ML (eds) Agroforestry in Europe: current status and future prospects, 6th edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–65
Rivest D, Olivier A, Gordon AM (2010) Hardwood intercropping systems: combining wood and agricultural production while delivering environmental services. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Cat. No. A42-108/2010E-PDF. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/agr/A42-108-2010-eng.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2019
Rogge E, Nevens F, Gutlinck H (2007) Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plan 82:159–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006
Ruiz J, Domon G (2009) Analysis of landscape pattern change trajectories within areas of intensive agricultural use: case study in a watershed of southern Québec, Canada. Landsc Ecol 24:419–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9321-4
Ruiz J, Domon G (2012) Relationships between rural inhabitants and their landscapes in areas of intensive agricultural use: a case study in Quebec (Canada). J Rural Stud 28(4):590–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.09.005
SAS Institute (2019) The MIXED Procedure. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Available online at https://documentation.sas.com/?docsetId=statug&docsetTarget=statug_mixed_overview.htm&docsetVersion=14.2&locale=en. Accessed 14 Mar 2019
Saucier JP, Grondin P, Robitaille A, Gosselin J, Morneau C, Richard PJH, Brisson J, Sirois L, Leduc A, Morin H, Thiffault E, Gauthier S, Lavoie C, Payette S (2009) Écologue forestière. In Ordre des ingénieurs forestiers du Québec (eds) Manuel de Foresterie, 2e edn. Ouvrage collectif, Éditions Multimondes, Québec, pp 165–316
Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund JL, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Venter M, Boedhihartono AK, Day M, Garcia C, Oostenj CV, Buck LE (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. PNAS 110(21):8349–8356. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210595110
Sevenant M, Antrop M (2010) The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy 27:827–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.11.002
Smith PL, Goodmon LB, Hester S (2018) The Burtynsky effect: aesthetic reactions to landscape photographs that vary in natural features. Psychol Aesthet Creativity Arts 12:34–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000151
Stamps AE (1993) Simulation effects on environmental preference. J Environ Manag 38:115–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1993.1033
Statistics Canada (2017a) Les Maskoutains, MRC [Census division], Quebec and Quebec [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed 09 Oct 2019
Statistics Canada (2017b). Charlevoix-Est, MRC [Census division], Quebec and Quebec [Province] (table). Census Profile. 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316-X2016001. Ottawa. Released November 29, 2017. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E. Accessed 09 Oct 2019
Steel RGD, Torrie JH, Dicky DA (1997) Principles and procedures of statistics, a biometrical approach, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, Inc. Book Co., New York, pp 352–358
Surová D, Pinto-Correia T (2008) Landscape preferences in the cork oak Montado region of Alentejo, southern Portugal: searching for valuable landscape characteristics for different user groups. Landsc Res 33(3):311–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390802045962
Surová D, Surový P, de Almeida Ribeiro N, Pinto-Correia T (2011) Integrating differentiated landscape preferences in a decision support model for the multifunctional management of the Montado. Agrofor Syst 82:225–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9373-8
Teixeira FZ, Bachi L, Blanco J, Zimmermann I, Welle I, Carvalho-Ribeiro S (2019) Perceived ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (EDS) from trees: insights from three case studies in Brazil and France. Landsc Ecol 34:1583–1600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00778-y
Tempesta T (2010) The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: a study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landsc Urban Plan 97:258–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.010
Tempesta T, Vecchiato D (2015) Testing the difference between experts’ and lay people’s landscape preferences. AESTIMUM 66:1–41. https://doi.org/10.13128/Aestimum-16481
The Landscape Institute (2002) Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment, 2nd edn. Taylor and Francis, London
Tress B, Tress G, Décamps H, d’Hauteserre AM (2001) Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landsc Urban Plan 57:137–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00199-2
Tsonkova P, Mirck J, Bohm C, Futz B (2018) Addressing farmer-perceptions and legal constraints to promote agroforestry in Germany. Agrofor Syst 92:1091–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0228-4
Tveit M, Ode A, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc Res 31:229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1738360. Accessed 20 Apr 2020
Van Berkel DB, Verburg PH (2012) Combining exploratory scenarios and participatory backcasting: using an agent-based model in participatory policy design for a multi-functional landscape. Landsc Ecol 27:641–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9730-7
Van den Berg AE, Vlek CAJ, Coeterier JF (1998) Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. J Environ Psychol 18:141–157. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0080
van Mansfeld JD (1997) An interdisciplinary approach to integrate a range of agro-landscape values as proposed by representatives of various disciplines. Agric Ecosyst Environ 63:233–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00017-0
Vouligny E, Domon G, Ruiz J (2009) An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents: landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use. Land Use Policy 4:890–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.10.016
Winans K, Whalen JK, Cogliastro A, Rivest D, Ribaudo L (2014) Soil carbon stocks in tow hybrid poplar-hay crop systems in southern Quebec, Canada. Forests 5:1952–1966. https://doi.org/10.3390/f5081952
Workman SW, Bannister ME, Nair PKR (2003) Agroforestry potential in the southeastern United States: perceptions of landowners and extension professionals. Agrofor Syst 59:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026193204801
Wu JG (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol 28:999–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9
Yu KJ (1995) Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landsc Urban Plan 32:107–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9
Zhou BB, Wu J, Anderies JM (2019) Sustainable landscapes and landscape sustainability: a tale of two concepts. Landsc Urban Plan 189:274–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.05.005
Zube EH (1986) Landscape values: history concepts and applications. In: Smardon R, Palmer J, Felleman J (eds) Foundations for visual project analysis. Wiley, New York, pp 3–19
Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG (1982) Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landsc Plan 9(1):1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the residents from Les Maskoutains and Charlevoix-Est for their participation, and all the public and private institutions who helped in the recruitment phase. We are grateful to Phyto-Design for their help with the photomontages and to Mamadou Yauck for statistical analysis advising. We also thank the reviewers for their insightful comments which significantly contributed to improve this paper. This research was partly funded by Agri-Food and Agriculture Canada and benefited from the financial support of the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the EDS Institute of Université Laval.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handled by Tobias Plieninger, Georg-August-Universitat Gottingen, Germany.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
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 15, 1337–1355 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00837-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00837-3