The loss of biological diversity is a major environmental problem occurring on a global scale. Human-environment researchers have an important role in shaping policy and programs at a local, national, and international level. This article explores human preference for landscapes relative to ecological quality and assesses the relationship between these preferences and land management behavior. A survey of more than 1,000 urban and rural residents of southeastern Australia examined preferences for 36 black and white photographs of native vegetation. There was more commonality than difference between urban and rural preference for different arrays of native vegetation. Preference for Eucalyptus species was higher than preference for non-Eucalyptus species. Preference ratings indicate minimal differences across landscapes with distinct variation in ecological quality. The study suggests that preference forlandscapes of relatively high ecological quality is associated with behaviorthat is protective of this resource.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of landscape. London: Wiley.
2.
Australian Bureau of Statistics . (1998). Environmental issues: People’s views and practices [Report No. 4602.2]. Canberra, Australia: Author.
3.
Barr, N. F. , & Cary, J. W. (1992). Greening a brown land: The Australian search for sustainable land use. Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan.
4.
Bidwell, D. , & Barro, S. C. (1996, February 5-6). Biodiversity and roadblocks to understanding it. In J. B. Skosey (Ed.), Tools for teaching biodiversity (pp. 14-20). Proceedings from the Chicago Wilderness Educators’ Conference on Biodiversity, Chicago, IL.
5.
Commonwealth of Australia . (1993). National biodiversity strategy. Canberra, Australia: Author.
6.
Commonwealth of Australia (1996a). Australia: State of the environment 1996. Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO.
7.
Commonwealth of Australia (1996b). Convention on biological diversity: A guide. Canberra, Australia: Author.
8.
Endter-Wada, J. , Blahna, D., Krannich, R., & Brunson, M. (1998). A framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications, 8(3), 891-904.
9.
Fenton, D. M. (1985). Dimensions of meaning in the perception of natural settings and their relationship to aesthetic response. Australian Journal of Psychology, 37(3), 325-329.
10.
Gobster, P. H. (1994). The urban savanna: Reuniting ecological preference and function. Restoration and Management Notes, 12, 64-71.
11.
Gobster, P. H. (1995). Aldo Leopold’s ecological esthetic: Integrating esthetic and biodiversity values. Journal of Forestry, 93(2), 6-10.
12.
Jones, R. (1985). Indigenous perception of the Australian landscape. In I. Donaldson and T. Donaldson (Eds.), Seeing the first Australians (pp. 181-209). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
13.
Kaplan, R. , & Herbert, E. J. (1987). Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281-293.
14.
Kaplan, R. , & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Kaplan, R. , Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment & Behavior, 21, 509-530.
16.
Kaplan, S. (1991). Beyond rationality: Clarity-based decision making. In T. Garling and G. Evans (Eds.), Environment, cognition and action (pp. 171-190). New York: Oxford University Press.
17.
Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
18.
Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14(2), 161-169.
19.
Norussis, M. (1993) SPSS for Windows: Base system user’s guide: Release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS.
20.
Orians, G. H. (1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In J. Lockard (Ed.), The evolution of human social behavior (pp. 49-66). Chicago: Elsevier.
21.
Orians, G. H. , & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adaptive mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 555-579). New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
Purcell, A. T. (1987). Landscape perception, preference and schema discrepancy. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 14, 67-92.
23.
Sommer, R. , & Summit, J. (1995). An exploratory study of preferred tree form. Environment & Behavior, 27(4), 540-557.
24.
Stanley, A. (2000, August 19-21). Indigenous land management perspective on conservation and production. In T. Barlow & R. Thorburn (Eds.), Balancing conservation and production in grassy landscapes (pp. 98-100). Proceedings of the Bushcare Grassy Landscapes Conference, Canberra, Australia.
25.
Summit, J. , & Sommer, R. (1999). Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environment & Behavior, 31, 550-556.
26.
Terra Research & Computing . (1993). Galileo*CATPAC: User manual. Birmingham, MI: Terra Research.
27.
Thayer, R. L. (1989). The experience of sustainable landscapes.Landscape Journal, 8, 101-110.
28.
Van den Berg, A. E. , Vlek, C.A.J., & Coeterier, J. F. (1998). Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 141-157.
