Visual landscape preference for farmers in southern Brazil

Siderlania Kelia Leite syda@unochapeco.edu.br

Universidade Comunitária da Região de Chapecó, Brazil

Arlene Anélia Renk arlene@unochapeco.edu.br

Universidade Comunitária da Região de Chapecó, Brazil

Camila Kissmann camilakissmann@gmail.com

Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, Brazil

Giovana Secretti Vendruscolo giovana.vendruscolo@unila.edu.br

Universidade Federal da Integração Latino-Americana, Brazil

The concept of landscape was initially associated only with the physical characteristics of the environment. Later, the human dimension was incorporated and the human interpretation was considered an essential characteristic to define the landscape (MEINING, 2002). Tuan (1979) stated that the landscape has a symbolic significance emerging from people's relationship with the environment. The landscape is also considered what is observed and also what the sight reaches, both within the dimension of perception (SANTOS, 2006). However, the interaction between people and territory is part of the concept of the cultural landscape, representing the community identity in a given time (Plieninger et al., 2006).

Landscape perception is organized and interpreted according to people's social and cultural experiences (FUENTES, 2011). Therefore, an individual’s inherent characteristics determine landscape perception and preference, resulting from one’s way of being and imaginative capacity, and from educational, cultural emotional, affective and sensitive factors (SCHWARZ et al., 2008). Environmental value orientation is another determinant of the preference for a landscape: individuals with a productivity agricultural value orientation usually prefer extensive agricultural landscapes and are less prone to prefer natural homogeneous landscapes (HOWLEY, 2011).

Different groups of people (local residents, tourists and professionals) differ regarding their landscape preference, reflecting the interests and objectives of each group. The place of residence is an important element influencing preference, as well as the familiarity of the respondents with the environment (HOWLEY, 2011; ISLAS, 2012; SOY-MASSONI et al., 2016; TANG et al., 2014). Familiarity with the landscape plays an important role in its appreciation, being strongly influenced by the experience of places from which people bring their particular memories (FUENTE DE VAL et al., 2004).

Several variables, mainly age and gender (HOWLEY, 2011; MILCU et al., 2014; SOY-MASSONI et al., 2016; TANG et al., 2014), may influence landscape preferences. Howley (2011) and Tang et al. (2014) reported that the age was important regarding the sense of security, i.e. respondents with higher age preferred places they considered safer. Soy-Massoni et al. (2016) showed differences regarding age and the visual preference for rural landscapes, with younger people preferring landscapes with forests and the older ones preferring cultural landscapes. Regarding the gender, Santos and Longhi (2012) stated that the highest values attributed by women to the landscape corresponded to the summer, a period marked by leaves and flowers.

Several studies conducted on landscape preference showed a higher preference for natural environments over constructed (ARRIAZA et al., 2004; HOWLEY, 2011; TANG et al., 2014; VAN DEN BERG et al., 2003). Of the natural elements, water increases the preference (ARRIAZA et al., 2004; BURMIL et al., 1999; LE LAY et al., 2013), because it is associated with different aesthetic and recreational values, with symbolic significance related to cultural, spiritual and religious aspects (BURMIL et al., 1999). The presence of irregular topography and vegetation also increases the preference for the landscape (ARRIAZA et al., 2004).

Different studies described the perception of rural landscapes, revealing interests and concerns of local populations with land management, agricultural changes, development in rural areas, social changes and access to the land (HALL, 2008; HARTEL et al., 2014; SHUIB; HASHIM, 2011). The rural landscape also features social and cultural values for farmers, such as a sense of identity, leisure resources and economical livelihood (SHUIB; HASHIM, 2011). It also represents the daily life of many rural populations, who perceive the changes in the landscape and the consequences in its visual appearance (DRAMSTAD et al., 2006).

Interpreting human perceptions and landscape preference is important for the management of rural and urban spaces in order to ensure the maintenance of the ecological functions of natural environments in such a way compatible with public use (FUENTE DE VAL et al., 2004). We carried out this study with farmers in the western region of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil, aiming to analyze landscape preference and to assess the influence of age and gender on this preference. In order to analyze the visual preference for a landscape, photographs that represent common landscapes in the study region were used to answer the following questions: 1) What regional landscapes farmers prefer? 2) What are the landscape elements that are most related to this preference? 3) Do the age and gender variables have a significant role in the visual preference for the landscape?

The discourses (factors) presented in this study were similar to the factors observed by Milcu et al. (2014) in Romania, Europe, with different people, including farmers. Discourse A, natural landscape as appreciation and recreation, is related to the connection of the informants with the environment, as highlighted in the studies of Tang et al. (2014). These authors stated that people who prefer natural landscapes are those that have a greater connection to natural vegetation. This connection depicts the profound appreciation of the individual for the natural environment, representing a possible motivation to be in resonance with that kind of environment and to seek positive perceptual experiences. Milcu et al. (2014) presented this discourse as "landscape to nature", with emphasis on the appreciation of the forest, with little influence of the people on the landscape.

Factor B, rural landscape as familiarity, is related to the fact that the rural landscape represents the key element of construction of the rural social identity, reaffirming the feeling of belonging to the place (CARNEIRO, 2012). This discourse gives meaning to the rural place, which influences the way people interact with the landscape (SHUIB; HASHIM, 2011). Milcu et al. (2014) described the "landscape for agriculture" discourse, highlighting the preference, especially by farmers, for landscapes with an agricultural system and other practical uses of the land, with little preference for leisure and native vegetation landscapes, as found in this study.

Factor C, cultural landscape, was the least representative factor among the informants and it shows the preference for landscapes that directly or indirectly have human presence and the disregard for landscapes with the predominance of natural elements. Milcu et al. (2014) also described the preference for landscapes that present people in different configurations, mainly during leisure activities and cultural events, mainly related to informants who practice subsistence agriculture and have low income. Howley (2011) described the lower preference by farmers for natural landscapes without human traces, pointing out that it may be related to the lack of economic productivity of landscape, making it unattractive in terms of agricultural productivity.

According to Hunziker et al. (2007), these different discourses of landscape preference may be associated with two modes of landscape perception: the landscape as space and the landscape as a place. Under the first, as noted in factors B and C, people perceive the landscape in terms of their needs, focusing on the instrumental use of the landscape. Under the latter, people perceive the landscape as self-reflection (experiences and accomplishments) and social integration (values, norms, symbols and meanings), as seen in factor A.

It was observed that the farmers' preference followed this gradient: natural > rural > urban to degraded landscapes. Kaplan et al. (1989) showed people's preference for natural environments over constructed ones, and Soy-Massoni et al. (2006) observed a preference gradient from rural to urban, similar to what we identified in this study. The landscape preferred by farmers was one of natural environment for aesthetics and contemplation, with water and waterfalls, which are classic elements in the preference for landscapes, also evidenced by other authors (ARRIAZA et al., 2004; HOWLEY, 2011; LE LAY et al., 2013; LÓPEZ-MARTÍNEZ, 2017). Water, when associated with native vegetation, assumes different meanings and values for individuals, and may symbolize purity, holiness and rebirth, or even a source of aesthetic attraction, leisure, recreation and a resting place (SCHWARZ et al., 2008).

Rural landscapes were preferred in our study, because rural communities favor the landscape related to the space where they live. This result was also demonstrated by Fuente de Val et al. (2004) when they compared interviewees from Spain (Europe) and Chile (South America), concluding that landscape preference depends on the interaction of people with the environment they live in. This perception is related to the familiarity with rural landscapes, in balance with the natural elements (ARRIAZA et al., 2004).

Urban and degraded landscapes did not have much preference, results which are consistent with the study of Arriaza et al. (2004), which reported that the preference for the landscape decreases with the presence of anthropic elements such as paved roads, industries and electricity distribution lines, common in urban environments. The least-valued landscape by farmers was the one that shows environmental degradation. This perception may be related to the fact that a degraded and abandoned may not only demonstrate ecological problems but also negative attitudes and social values (SCHWARZ et al., 2008). This result is consistent with the observation made by Hall (2008), according to whom the participants expressed dissatisfaction with landscapes that suggest negligence and lack of management. However, Peron et al. (2002) stated that mixed environments, containing urban infrastructure and natural elements can be accepted by people as natural environments. studies have demonstrated the acceptance and preference for green spaces in cities (BONTHOUX et al. 2019; HUNZIKER et al., 2008). Arriaza et al. (2004) state that urban afforestation is important for the health of both the urban environment and the people.

The present study showed that the lower the age the higher the preference for natural and more homogeneous landscapes of contemplation and recreation, with elements such as water and native forest. On the other hand, older respondents preferred urban landscapes. Other studies reported a similar pattern (SOY-MASSONI et al., 2016; XU et al., 2020). Young people may have a stronger personal connection with the natural environment, providing a greater sense of security, legibility and mystery, with a perception of the natural landscape as attractive and fascinating (TANG et al., 2014). As for the preference for cultural landscapes by the older respondents, it may be related to the physical and psychological vulnerability that natural environments cause in older people, making them more susceptible to the dangers of natural areas (VAN DEN BERG; KOOLE, 2006).

The preference for different rural landscapes showed no significant difference in relation to age groups, which is consistent with what was observed by Hunziker et al. (2008), but is contrary to other studies (SOY-MASSONI et al., 2016; TANG et al., 2014). This result was probably because all informants are familiar with the rural landscape and the age difference is only verified if the non-preference for recreational environments of older informants is also considered, as shown with factor B (rural landscape as familiarity). A non-preference for recreational landscapes among older farmers was also found in the studies of Milcu et al. (2014), with the "landscape for agriculture" factor, where people related to this factor (mostly farmers with an average age of 45 years old) did not enjoy landscapes of forest and landscapes of leisure and recreation, using the lack of time as justification.

Our study showed that women have a lower rejection of the presence of forestry in the landscape. Regarding gender, some studies do not indicate significant differences in perception responses (CRUZ et al., 2007; GAO et al., 2019; TANG et al., 2014), including the consideration of forestry with exotic species (HEMSTRÖM et al., 2014). The presence of forestry with exotic species was intensified in the western region of Santa Catarina in recent decades (VIEBRANTZ, 2009) and people living in regions that are closer to forestry areas have detected more changes in the landscape, may justify the rejection of this landscape by interviewed farmers (PÜSCHEL-HOENEISEN; SIMONETTI, 2012). In addition, Laroche et al. (2020) demonstrated Canadians have no appreciation of linear arrangement of trees, which can denote artificiality.

The preferred landscapes followed the gradient of natural > rural > urban landscapes. There was a consensus regarding the rejection of urban landscapes without the presence of natural elements and of environments with environmental degradation and disorganization. Age was an important factor in the preference for natural landscapes, preferred by the younger, and afforested urban landscapes, preferred by the older farmers. The opinions about the practice of forestry vary with gender, as they are less rejected by women.

These results emphasized the need to consider the perceptions of populations in landscape management plans in order to maintain the landscape with higher acceptance and the identity of these people. In addition, this study highlighted the acceptance by farmers of most rural landscapes, except for the landscapes with eucalyptus forestry, a common practice in the region. An alternative to that is the incentive of sources of income that involve native plants, such as planting of native species for income or rural tourism. These practices, if well planned, cause little change to the landscape. Natural landscapes and urban environments with the presence of natural elements were also well accepted by farmers. This shows that natural elements contribute to human welfare and should be considered in the management of urban spaces, especially for leisure.

The authors thank the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) for the master's scholarship. The authors thank the farmers for their hospitality and receptivity in conducting the study.

Ethical and legal aspects: This project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Community University of the Region of Chapecó (Protocol No. 1.482.875/2016).