Planning frequently fails to include the valuation of public goods, such as scenic beauty. This can lead to negative economic impacts for a region over the longer term. Especially in mountainous regions such as the Alps in central Europe, which depend on tourist income, the change of landscape views through the development of facilities for recreation and tourism may negatively affect the tourism experience, and hence the economy. In this study we present a prototypical technique to predict preferences for views using geographic information system (GIS)-based variables. A three-dimensional GIS including the effects of slope, aspect, and distance, as well as the height of landscape features, is developed to calculate the proportion of land-cover areas that make up the view. A Web-based survey is used to gather data on scenic preferences for landscape changes in the region around Davos (Switzerland). Willingness-to-pay (WTP) responses are used to identify preferred landscapes. A forced-choice questionnaire asks participants to compare pairs of landscape photographs. Two original pictures were digitally altered to visually represent landscape change scenarios developed for the study area. The visual magnitudes of the different land-cover areas are found to be correlated with the WTP values expressed by the respondents. The relationship is used to predict changes in scenic values for another view in the region. The approach presented in this paper could be useful in regional planning to estimate the influence of view components on people's preferences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnwanderSBuergiSCavegnGMeyerLRiederPSalminiJ, 1990Direktzahlungen an die Berglandwirtschaft [Direct subsidies to agriculture] (Vdf Hochschulverlag, Zürich)
2.
ArrowK JSolowP RPortneyE ELeamerRRadnerRSchumanH, 1993, “Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation”Federal Register584601
3.
BatemanI JWillisK G, 1999Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
4.
BebiPKytziaSBiegerTFreyWSemadeniC, 2003, “Vulnerability of the Alpine landscape and habitat: Simulation of future landscapes and development of support tools for regional decision making”, Schweizerische Nationalfonds, Bern
5.
BishopI DHullR B, 1991, “Integrating technologies for visual resource management”Journal of Environmental Management32295–312
6.
BishopI DLangeEMahbubulA M, 2004, “Estimation of the influence of view components on high-rise apartment pricing using a public survey and GIS modeling”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31439–452
7.
BrantinghamP LGlässerYSinghKVajihollahiM, 2005, “Mastermind: modeling, and simulation of criminal activity in urban environments”, TR CMPT 2005-01, Faculty of Applied Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
8.
BroggiM F, 1995, “Aspekt der Nachhaltigkeit und Rolle regionalisierter Betrachtungsweisendargestellt am Beispiel der Berglandwirtschaft” [Aspects of sustainability and role of regional aspects presented using an example of mountain agriculture]Laufener Seminarbeitrag4101–110
9.
BrownT, 1990, “Comparing what you see in a slide with what you see in a map”, in Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Social Science in Resource Management Ed. GramannJ, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, pp 32–34
10.
BugmannHZierleBSchumacherS, 2005, “Projecting the impacts of climate change on mountain forests and landscapes”, in Global Change and Mountain Regions: An Overview of Current Knowledge Eds HuberU MReasonerM ABugmannH K M (Kluwer, Dordrecht) pp 477–488
11.
CorripioJ G, 2002Snow Surface Albedo Estimation Using Terrestrial Photography PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
12.
De FlorianiLMagilloP, 2003, “Algorithms for visibility computation on terrains: A survey”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30709–728
13.
de GrootR S, 1992Functions of Nature—Evaluation on Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision Making (Wolters-Noordhoff, Amsterdam)
14.
FreemanA MIII, 1992The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods (Resources for the Future, Washington, DC)
15.
GarrodGWillisK G, 1999Economic Valuation of the Environment: Methods and Case Studies (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
16.
GehringKBucheckerMHunzikerM, 2003, “Explaining public assessments of future landscape developments—towards an integrative preference model based on a representative survey in Switzerland”, in Crossing Boundaries—The Value of Interdisciplinary Research. Proceedings of the Third Conference on the EPUK Network Ed. CraigT (Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen) 5311f
17.
GuisanATheurillatJ-PKienastF, 1998, “Predicting the potential distribution of plant species in an alpine environment”Journal of Vegetation Science965–74
18.
HadrianD RBishopI DMitcheltreeR, 1988, “Automated mapping of visual impacts in utility corridors”Landscape and Urban Planning16261–283
19.
HarrisonG WKristömB, 1996, “On the interpretation of responses to contingent valuation surveys”, in Current Issues in Environmental Economics Eds JohanssonP OKriströmBMäierK G (Manchester University Press, Manchester)
20.
HealG, 2000Nature and the Marketplace-Capturing the Value of Ecosystem Services (Island Press, Washington, DC)
21.
HufschmidtM MJamesD EMeisterA DBowerB TDixonJ A, 1983Environment, Natural Systems, and Development—An Economic Valuation Guide (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
22.
HunzikerM, 2000, “Einstellungen der Bevölkerung zu möglichen Landschaftsentwicklungen in den Alpen” [Population attitudes to landscape changes in the Alps] (Eidgenössiche Forschungsanstalt, WSL, Birmensdorf) page 157
23.
HunzikerMKienastF, 1999, “Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty-a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment”Landscape Ecology14161–176
24.
IversonW D, 1985, “And that's about the size of it: Visual magnitude as a measurement of the physical landscape”Landscape Journal414–22
25.
JungM, 1996Präferenzen und Zahlungsbereitschaft für eine verbesserte Umweltqualität im Agrarbereich [Preference and willingness to pay for a better environmental quality in agricultural area] (Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main)
26.
KörnerCh, 1998, “A reassessment of high elevation treeline positions and their explanation”Oecologia115445–459
27.
LakeI RLovettA ABatemanI JDayB, 2000, “Using GIS and large-scale digital data to implement hedonic pricing studiesInternational Journal of Geographic Information Systems14521–541
28.
LangeESchaefferP V, 2001, “A comment on the market value of a room with a view”Landscape and Urban Planning55113–120
29.
LuttikJ, 2000, “The value of trees, water and open spaces reflected by house prices in the Netherlands”Landscape and Urban Planning48161–167
30.
MitchellR CCarsonR T, 1981, “An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality improvements”, Draft Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
31.
NielsenC, 1992Der Wert Stadtnaher Wälder als Erholungsraum—Eine Ökonomische Analyse am Beispiel von Lugano [The value of urban forests as leisure place—an economic analysis of an example of Lugano] (Rügger, Zürich)
32.
NOAA, 1993, “Report on the NOAA panel on contingent valuation”Federal Register584602–4614
33.
OcCC, 2003, Extremereignisse und Klimaänderung [Extreme events and climate change]Organe Consultatif sur les Changements Climatiques, Schwarztorstrasse 9, Bern
34.
OECD, 1989, “Environmental policy benefits: monetary evaluation”, prepared by PearceD W and MarkandyaA, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2 rue André Pascal, Paris
35.
OhKLeeW, 2002, “Estimating the value of landscape visibility in apartment housing prices”Journal of Architectural and Planning Research191–24
36.
OrlandB A, 1993, “Computer video-imaging in visual simulation”, in Environmental Simulation: Research and Policy Issues Eds MaransRStokolsD (Plenum Press, New York) pp 213–252
37.
PalmerJ FHoffmanR E, 2001, “Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessment”Landscape and Urban Planning54149–161
38.
PatersonR WBoyleK J, 2002, “Out of sight, out of mind? Using GIS to incorporate visibility in hedonic property value models”Land Economics78417–425
39.
RoschewitzA, 1999, “Der monetäre Wert der Kulturlandschaft—Eine Contingent Valuation Studie [the monetary value of cultural landscape—a contingent valuation study] (Wissenschaftsverlag, Vauk Kiel KG, Kiel)
40.
SellJ LZubeE H, 1986, “Perception of a response to environmental change”Journal of Architectural Planning Research333–54
41.
SteinitzC, 1990, “Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: The loop road in Acadia National Park, USA”Landscape and Urban Planning19213–250
42.
TahvanainenLTyrvainenLNousianinenI, 1996, “Effect of afforestation on the scenic value of rural landscapes-attaining visual quality objectives in timber harvest areas: Landscape architects' evaluation”Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research11397–405
