4.7 Article

A new approach to the identification of Landscape Quality Objectives (LQOs) as a set of indicators

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 184, Issue -, Pages 596-608

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.016

Keywords

European Landscape Convention; Environmental management tools; Landscape indicators; Landscape quality; Socio-ecological studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of the paper is threefold: (1) to introduce Landscape Quality Objectives (LQOs) as a set of indicators; (2) to present a method of linking social and expert opinion in the process of the formulation of landscape indicators; and (3) to present a methodological framework for the identification of LQOs. The implementation of these goals adopted a six-stage procedure based on the use of landscape units: (1) GIS analysis; (2) classification; (3) social survey; (4) expert value judgement; (5) quality assessment; and (6) guidelines formulation. The essence of the research was the presentation of features that determine landscape quality according to public opinion as a set of indicators. The results showed that 80 such indicators were identified, of both a qualitative (49) and a quantitative character (31). Among the analysed units, 60% (18 objects) featured socially expected (and confirmed by experts) levels of landscape quality, and 20% (6 objects) required overall quality improvement in terms of both public and expert opinion. The adopted procedure provides a new tool for integrating social responsibility into environmental management. The advantage of the presented method is the possibility of its application in the territories of various European countries. It is flexible enough to be based on cartographic studies, landscape research methods, and environmental quality standards existing in a given country. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available