4.6 Article

Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 250-267

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.002

Keywords

Semantic differentials; Land use; Group difference; Rice paddy; Woodland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A long history of human-nature interactions mediated by agriculture, resulted in high biodiversity in Japanese rural landscapes. This diversity faces drastic decline due to the changes following the socioeconomic circumstances regarding agriculture. Rural conservation will require cooperation among major stakeholders, and knowing how preferences for and perceptions of rural landscapes differ among them can help crafting and implementing effective conservation measures. This study investigated how perceptions of rural landscapes in the Arai-Keinan region, Niigata, Japan differ among people having very different relationships to them. In a photograph-based semantic differential survey, farmers and naturalists, major stakeholders in rural conservation, rated both rice paddy and woodland landscapes. In determining preferences for rice paddy landscapes, perceptions of stewardship and openness were significantly more important for farmers, whereas those of naturalness and biodiversity were significantly more important for naturalists. Such group differences were not found for woodland landscapes. Analysis of perceptions for landscape changes suggested that farmers may have higher normative criteria for rural landscapes than naturalists. Group preferences for intensified rice paddies on sloped topography may conflict, and any rural conservation planning effort should carefully consider that farmers and naturalists consider different aspects of landscapes as important. (C) 2008 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available