Flash presentation: German Case Study Area and Ad-hoc Studies

Transcription

1 Flash presentation: German Case Study Area and Ad-hoc Studies F. Ungaro 1, 2, K. Häfner 1, I. Zasada 1, D. Pohle 1, A. Piorr 1. 1 Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socio-Economics, Eberswalder str.84, Müncheberg Germany; ph , fax ; fabrizio.ungaro@zalf.de 2 National Research Council, Institute for Biometeorology (CNR Ibimet) Via Madonna del Piano 10, Sesto F.no, Italy

2 Introduction: Case Study Area Large field size (average 229 ha arable land per farm holding) Typical: lakes, forests and farmland Landscape: fragmented, mosaic-like, semi-open Threat: scale enlargement and intensification of agricultural practices Nature Park Tourism

3 Ad-hoc studies carried out: Ad-hoc 1: Land-cover based assessment of landscape capacity to provide ecosystem services Ad-hoc 2: Mapping landscape services, competition and synergies Ad-hoc 3: Assessing the effect of scale enlargement on the provision of landscape services Ad-hoc 4: Analysis of Residents and Visitors Preferences of different Landscape Ad-hoc 5: Mapping cultural ecosystem services: from aesthetic appreciation to multiplelevel governance of enhanced services provision Attributes using a visual choice Method

4 Analysis of Residents and Visitors Preferences of Landscape Stated preference analysis Visual Choice Experiment among visitors and residents (n = 200) Development of photorealistic representations of landscape choice cards Differentiation of 4 attributes in 3 levels (high, medium, low) respectively 2 (available / non-available): Grazing livestock Diversity of agricultural land use Linear green elements Point green elements

5 Analysis of Residents and Visitors Preferences of Landscape Results General high preference for high abundance of all kind of landscape elements But also significant differences between attributes Attribute Level Coefficient Rank Livestock present 0.75*** 5 higher coefficients correspond to higher preference Crop diversity medium 0.13* 7 high 1.03*** 4 Linear elements medium 0.22*** 6 high 1.38*** 2 Point elements medium 1.18*** 3 high 2.10*** 1 ***, **, * ==> Significance at 1%, 5%, 10% level

6 Analysis of Residents and Visitors Preferences of Landscape Results Differences among respondents 30 % show opposite preference Socio-cultural backround does influence preference Socio-economic variable Preference Attribute Gender (Female) +++ Livestock ++ Crop diversity -- Linear elements - Point elements Education +++ Crop diversity +++ Linear elements +++ Point elements Age ++ Livestock - Crop diversity +++ Point elements Connection ++ Crop diversity Value setting (Conservative/Green) +++ Crop diversity +++ Linear elements Conveyance (Eco-friendly Transport) +++ Linear elements

7 Analysis of Residents and Visitors Preferences of Landscape Landcover in the Case Study Area

8 Analysis of Residents and Visitors Preferences of Landscape Hot and Cold Spots of Landscape Beauty Cold Spots Hot Spots

9 Probabilistic approach to landscape services spatial modelling Point elements Landscape utilities Utility score Level 1: 0.00 Level 2: 1.18 Level 3: 2.09 Probability maps Linear elements Level 1: 0.00 Level 2: 0.22 Level 3: 1.38 Ungaro F., Zasada I., Piorr A., Ecological Indicators, 46, Goal: identify priority areas for local landscape management from an aesthetic perspective (cultural landscape services), e.g. at municipality level taking into account local condition, i.e. sublandscape units and environmental protection

10 Targeting potential changes in landscape elements Linear elements Point elements Potential increase Δi (x,y) Δi (x,y) = Pt jkl P (x,y)jkl Pt jkl probability target threshold set for the j th municipality, with the k th landscape unit, under the l th management option based on observed estimated distributions Potential decrease Δd (x,y) Δd (x,y) = P (x,y)jkl Pt jkl

11 Targeting potential changes in aesthetic preferences Potential increase (point and linear elements) Actual Potential decrease (point and linear elements)

12 Targeting potential changes in aesthetic preferences Increase linear elements to p50 Min. costs Max. costs Share new linear elements Buckow BP Y Garzau-Garzin BP N Garzau-Garzin BP Y Märk. Höhe BP N Neuhardenberg BP N Neuhardenberg BP Y Oberbarnim BP N Oberbarnim BP Y Prötzel BP N Prötzel BP Y Rehfelde BP N Rehfelde BP Y Strausberg BP N Strausberg BP Y Waldsieversdorf BP Y Buckow BV Y Märk. Höhe BV Y Müncheberg BV N Müncheberg BV Y Neuhardenberg BV N Neuhardenberg BV Y Oberbarnim BV Y Müncheberg LP N Müncheberg LP Y Neuhardenberg LP N Neuhardenberg LP Y Oberbarnim OB N Oberbarnim OB Y Prötzel OB N Prötzel OB Y Strausberg OB N Neuhardenberg OV N Neuhardenberg OV Y Garzau-Garzin RL Y Müncheberg RL N Müncheberg RL Y Rehfelde RL N Rehfelde RL Y Waldsieversdorf RL Y New linear elements density, m/ha Estimated total length new elements: 43,170 m Min and Max total cost Estimated avg. cost per unit area: ha Estimated total cost*: 388, ,801 * source: Deutscher Verband fur Landschaftpflege (DVL) e V. (2006) 0 Buckow Garzau-Garzin Märk. Höhe Müncheberg Neuhardenberg Oberbarnim Prötzel Rehfelde Strausberg Waldsieversdorf

13 Targeting potential changes in aesthetic preferences Utility changes after increase in linear elements to p Median; Box: 25%, 75%; Whisker: Non-Outlier Min, Non-Outlier Max Cost, Euro/ha , to3 2to3 1to2 Change in utility Cost Min50 CostMax50 70,000 60,000 50,000 Cost, Euro 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000-1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 3 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 3 1 to 3 2 to 3 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 3 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 2 1 to 2 Buckow Buckow Buckow Garzau- Garzin Garzau- Garzin Garzau- Garzin Märk. Höhe Märk. Höhe Müncheberg Oberbarnim Oberbarnim Prötzel Rehfelde Strausberg Waldsieversdorf Changes in utility class

14 thanks for your attention!