Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Can visitors visually distinguish successive coastal landscapes? A case study from the Curonian ()

* Ramunas Povilanskas a, , Dalia Baziuke_ b,Ke˛stutis Ducinskas c, Arvydas Urbis d a Centre for Health Research and Innovation, Klaipeda_ University, Herkaus Manto g. 84, LT-92294, Klaipeda,_ Lithuania b Centre for Distance Education and Information Systems, Klaipeda_ University, Lithuania c Department of Informatics and Statistics, Klaipeda_ University, Lithuania d Department of Nature Sciences, Klaipeda_ University, Lithuania article info abstract

Article history: Visual distinctiveness of the series of successive coastal landscapes featuring the , a Received 29 March 2015 UNESCO World Heritage site, has been investigated using black and white landscape photos as visual Received in revised form stimuli. Based on the results of the chi-square test it was confirmed with strong statistical evidence that 5 October 2015 lay visitors indeed are capable of visual distinguishing different coastal landscapes and habitats which Accepted 9 October 2015 occur in the succession series from the shifting dunes to the mature forest. In all investigated 45 different Available online xxx cases of coastal landscapes the ‘null hypothesis’ was rejected with p < 0.00001. If the photographs representing the landscapes are carefully selected by a dedicated group of professionals, then lay visitors Keywords: Curonian spit can correctly distinguish the landscapes and/or habitats even in the case when black and white pho- Visual distinctiveness tographs are applied as visual stimuli. Aesthetic quality © 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction Knowledge of the relationship between visitors' activities and their landscape preferences may be of great help in the manage- 1.1. Problem description ment of natural areas under high recreational use (Atauri et al., 2000). Most natural landscapes are relatively fragile and suscepti- Scenery plays a crucial role in attracting tourists in many regions ble to anthropogenic impacts developing through poor manage- and environments (Lothian, 1999). People who visit forests for ment of scenic resources (Chhetri and Arrowsmith, 2008). Hence, recreation form perceptions of a place based on what they see and scenic landscape aesthetics can facilitate combining sustainable experience from the aesthetic point of view (Gobster, 1999). Coastal management goals with a scientifically grounded understanding of scenery is a major component of the desires of tourists visiting the how visitors make landscape preferences (Parsons and Daniel, coast, and it is a combination of the physical and cultural envi- 2002). The possibility of relating individuals’ landscape prefer- ronment (Anfuso et al., 2014). Enjoying scenery is also an important ences to sociological, psychological or cultural features allows subcomponent in recreational activities such as fishing and hunting planners and decision-makers to incorporate public perception (Arlinghaus, 2006; Rolloff, 1998). Scenic appeal of landscapes is explicitly into the policy-making process in a more proactive and particularly relevant to the post-industrial tourism paradigm, innovative way (Scott, 2003). referring to the Urry's concept of the tourist gaze (2002, p. 149): Scenic beauty can be a fair measurement proxy for perceived ‘Almost all environments across the globe have been transformed, acceptability of land management (Ribe, 2002). Consideration of or are being transformed, into diverse and collectable spectacles, the aesthetic perceptions, judgments, needs and demands of the spectacles often now involving ‘gates’ in order that paying visitors public can contribute to a wiser resource use and more effective can enter, be charged and can consume them.’ and intelligent planning of future landscapes (Vining and Stevens, 1986). What is needed is a visual aesthetic assessment of geographic and temporal patterns of environmental conditions in

* comparison to other possible alternatives (Daniel, 2001). As it is Corresponding author. ‘ E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Povilanskas). aptly noted by Lewis (2006, p. 88): In effect, bringing aesthetic http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.002 0964-5691/© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 110 R. Povilanskas et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118 expectations into play in a way that provides mutual benefits to 2. Methodology natural and human ecosystems requires designing landscapes and crafting policies with an awareness of what different stakeholders 2.1. Study area value and require from their environment.’ Thus, in the US, in recent decades, there has been a move away Our study focuses on the Curonian barrier spit which separates from managing scenery towards designing forestry activities to fit the Curonian Lagoon from the open (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). The into or at least to try not to cause negative impacts on the aesthetic length of the Curonian Spit is 94 km (sensu stricto), the width varies quality of the forest landscapes (Bell, 2001). In the US state of Rhode from 380 m to 4 km. It is the largest accumulative barrier sand spit Island, aesthetic value (along with natural, commercial, industrial, in the Baltic Sea Region (Gudelis, 1995). The varied and dynamic and recreational features) is officially recognized in the state's dune landscape with high biological diversity is a distinctive legislation as a primary asset of the coastal zone (Dalton and feature of the Curonian Spit on the regional scale (Basalykas, 1977; Thompson, 2013). Povilanskas et al., 2012). The 32.6-km long Grand Curonian Dune Ridge of 40e60 m high shifting dunes is the second longest coastal 1.2. Interpretations of the scenic quality of landscapes shifting dune ridge in Europe (Povilanskas and Chubarenko, 2000). It is protected as a strict nature reserve within the Kurshskaya kosa The linkage between landscape and scenery as the main way to national park on the Russian part of the spit (est. 1987), and the judge on its quality is well-documented (Ribe, 1989, 2002; Rolloff, Kursiu˛ nerija national park on the Lithuanian part (est. 1991). Due to 1998; Tveit et al., 2006). It has been suggested that: ‘the aesthetic its unique blend of nature and culture values, the whole Curonian dimensions of viewing landscape and experiencing scenic beauty Spit was included into the UNESCO World Heritage List as a single are an integral part of an individual's overall experience in natural cultural landscape of outstanding international importance environment’ (Ormsby et al., 2004, p. 34). (UNESCO, 2001). A number of different yet closely interrelated terms have been Until now, the dune landscapes of the Curonian Spit are among used to denote these aesthetic dimensions, including: ‘aesthetic the most dynamic in the Baltic Sea Region (Gudelis, 1998). There are appeal’ (Shafer et al., 1969), ‘scenic beauty’ (Daniel et al., 1977; five strips of shifting barchans still remaining on the spit. The total Daniel and Vining, 1983; De la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; De Vries length of these strips is 32.6 km, 21.9 km being on the Russian part, et al., 2012); ‘scenic quality’ (Arthur, 1977; Ayad, 2005; and 10.7 km on the Lithuanian part of the spit (Povilanskas et al., Eleftheriadis et al., 1990; Palmer, 2000; Ribe, 2002; Wu et al., 2006). The shifting dune landscape forms the most distinctive 2006); ‘aesthetic quality’ (Daniel, 2001; Gobster and Westphal, natural heritage value of the spit, with the highest shifting dunes 2004; Ode et al., 2009), ‘scenic attractiveness’ (Chhetri and exceeding 50 m in height and protected within four strict nature Arrowsmith, 2008), ‘visual quality’ (Lien and Buhyoff, 1986; reserves (Povilanskas et al., 2014). Manning et al., 1996; Tveit et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2006). In most Unfortunately, the policy of senseless forestation which pre- cases, the use of the term ‘scenic quality’ (or, interchangeably, vailed on the Curonian Spit after the World War II, and particularly ‘aesthetic quality’) has come to include most of the above. throughout 1970se1980s, had speeded up degradation, fragmen- The need for the aesthetic appreciation of coastal landscapes tation and flattening of the shifting dunes (Povilanskas et al., 2009). and habitats grows with an increasing environmental awareness As a result, the shifting barchans of the Curonian Spit became and reflects the potential aesthetic and recreational value of these devoid of any local sand supply sources and rapidly degraded with landscapes that can be pertinent for tourism development, in the scrub and forest succession facilitated by the climate change coastal heritage areas in particular (Povilanskas, 2004). The terms (Povilanskas et al., 2011). Therefore, the key pre-condition to ensure to denote the perceptional and cognitive processes of viewing, a truly integrated management of amenities and values of the assessing, valuating and favouring landscapes are therefore widely Curonian Spit is balancing different priorities in the management of applied, like ‘aesthetic response to landscape’ (Pitt and Zube, 1987), the shifting dunes and the forest plantations, also based on scenic ‘appraisal of scenic beauty’ (Chhetri et al., 2004; Hull and Stewart, quality assessment (Povilanskas, 2009). 1992); ‘visual landscape perception’ (Ervin and Steinitz, 2003; Fairweather and Swafield, 2001; Jacobsen, 2007; Nassauer, 1995; 2.2. Long-range and short-range viewsheds in the scenic quality Shafer et al., 1969; Zube et al., 1982); ‘perception of scenic quality’ appraisal of coastal landscapes (Ribe, 1989, 2002); ‘landscape preference’ (Abbelo and Bernaldez, 1986; De la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; Jorgensen et al., 2002; View distance has long been recognised as a crucial factor in Kaltenborn and Bjerke, 2002; Ode et al., 2009; Palmer, 2000; landscape preference studies (Jorgensen et al., 2002). A deep, wide Purcell et al., 1994; Wherrett, 2000); ‘scenic and/or aesthetic viewshed has been shown of great importance in determining vi- preference’ (Gobster and Westphal, 2004; Lim et al., 2015). sual quality (Appleton, 1996). This is closely linked to the feeling of Whereas each of the above terms has different shades of having a general or panoramic view of the landscape (Hagerhall, meaning, scholars and practitioners in the vast research field into 2000). Therefore, first scenic quality and landscape perception the scenic quality are mostly concerned with the questions ‘What studies investigated the aesthetic appeal of various long-range we see, and what we make of what we see’ (Ervin and Steinitz, wilderness vistas (Daniel et al., 1977; Shafer et al., 1969; Shafer 2003, p. 757) aiming to understand, interpret and utilize the and Mietz, 1969; Shafer and Richards, 1974). Yet, soon the focus judgment that a landscape is beautiful either as a source of shifted to the investigations of the near-view aesthetic quality, aesthetic and psychological satisfaction, or as an economically which proved to be more practical regarding management and meaningful amenity. But are visitors to nature areas, particularly to policy prerequisites (Rolloff, 1998).1 the coastal ones, indeed capable of distinguishing different land- Arthur (1977) used multiple regression analysis to develop the scape types in a way that were meaningful for spatial planning, first successful models for predicting near-view scenic beauty landscape management and caring for the scenic quality? This based on vegetative characteristics of forest scenes. As a result the question is especially challenging in the case of successive habitats gradually featuring different coastal landscapes: from shifting white dunes to scrubland, to mature forests and forest plantations. 1 Here and further in the text a ‘viewshed’ is interpreted as the extent and It is the central question addressed in the present case study. location of terrain visible from a given viewpoint (Floriani and Magillo, 1999). R. Povilanskas et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118 111

Fig. 1. Map of Europe. The insert map shows the southeast Baltic Sea and the Curonian Spit.

Fig. 2. Map of the southeast Baltic Sea. The insert map shows the study area on the Curonian Spit where the photos representing the surveyed landscapes have been taken. potential utility of near-view scenic beauty response models soon primarily in the US (Ribe, 1989). Most studies of view preference became well documented (Brown and Daniel, 1986), and already by have dealt with small viewshed areas where a neighbourhood, or the end of the 1980s, a remarkable amount of empirical research small grove of trees, might comprise a view (Germino et al., 2001; has explored the aesthetic perception of near-view forest scenery, Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Llobera (1999, cited from Llobera, 2003) 112 R. Povilanskas et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118 distinguished the near viewshed as the smallest continuous area gained from photographs, and from experience ‘in the field’, sug- immediately surrounding a viewpoint and tried to describe some of gest that for the study of tourism-related landscapes the use of its characteristics. photographic representations is valid and consistent with direct experience of the represented landscapes, if appropriate methods 2.3. Application of photographs for scenic quality appraisal are applied to ensure the reliability and validity of the represen- tations (Daniel and Meitner, 2001; Fairweather and Swafield, 2001; Photographs are the most common visual stimuli used in social Jacobsen, 2007). Stewart et al. (1984) asserted that the validity of science research (Emmison and Smith, 2000). Shafer (1964, cited photographs as visual alternatives to on-site judgments depends on from Brown and Daniel (1986) was among the first to suggest using the following characteristics: 1) vision is the dominant sense used colour photographs and psychophysical techniques to measure the to gather relevant information; 2) observers are stationary when scenic quality of forest landscapes. Up till now, photographs remain the judgments are made; 3) relevant visual information is located the most widely used technique in landscape perception and far from the observer; 4) visual information out of the observer's preference research (Jacobsen, 2007; Jorgensen, 2011; Karjalainen field of view should be irrelevant to the judgment; 5) observers are and Tyrvainen,€ 2002). A series of comparative evaluations have trained to make sound visual judgments; 6) visual distortions (e.g. confirmed the general viability of photographs as surrogates for colour) in photographs are replaced by other information of landscape experience (Fairweather and Swafield, 2001; Vining and equivalent value. Stevens, 1986; Zube and Pitt, 1981). Photographs permit control by the researcher over presentation contexts and procedures and of 2.4. Survey design the conditions under which the landscapes will be perceived: at- mospheric and light conditions, number and type of elements Palmer and Hoffman (2001, p. 159) provided the following rec- present etc. (Jacobsen, 2007). Yet another advantage is the possi- ommendations for ensuring the reliability and validity of the bility for a given subject to simultaneously compare several pho- photographic representations in scenic quality assessment: 1. tographs (Real et al., 2000). Establish the reliability of professional ratings. This may be accom- Photographs are particularly pertinent in landscape preference plished by having several professionals evaluate each view and studies of tourist destinations, since visual stimuli are more readily then calculating the reliability coefficient. It is also desirable to recalled and affect attitudes towards tourist destinations whereas establish the relationship of professional ratings to a criterion tourist offers and destinations are promoted by means of photo- group, such as a random sample of the public. 2. Establish the val- graphic representations (Laskey et al., 1994; Mackay and Couldwell, idity of each landscape representation. This may be accomplished by 2004). Images are considered to be crucial in determining a number comparing the ratings of the representations and actual field con- of important consumer variables, including destination choices, ditions from several individuals. In situations where the visual tourist behaviour, and product satisfaction (Garrod, 2007, 2008; condition might be quite diverse, use panoramic images or more Scarles, 2010). The variety of approaches which have been taken than one photograph from each viewpoint. 3. Establish a record of to apply visual methods for examining people's perceptions of preparing valid visual simulations. It is, of course, not possible to destinations range from the highly interventionist, wherein re- establish the validity of a simulation before it is built, but it is searchers choose the visual images to be studied, to the highly possible to validate the existing condition's representation. participatory, wherein the research subjects themselves collect In the current survey we have focused on these all three stages photographic representations of those images, which are subse- of ensuring the validity of scenic quality assessment of the Curonian quently analyzed by the researchers (Garrod, 2008, p. 382). Spit dune landscapes. We have started from establishing the reli- One of the more popular approaches, which was developed a ability of professional ratings of each view and the relationship of few decades ago and applied by numerous authors (Abello and professional ratings to a random sample of the public. One critical Bernaldez, 1986; Atauri et al., 2000; De Lucio and Múgica, 1994; problem in the survey design was the use of black and white Múgica and de Lucio, 1996; Vining and Stevens, 1986), is the photographs. Some references on photograph-based landscape method of paired comparisons. This response method consists of simulations indicate that lack of colour makes a difference in the systematic pairing of objects or stimuli. As each pair is pre- simulation validity (Stamps, 2004), yet, as mentioned above, colour sented, the observer makes a judgment indicating which member can be also interpreted as a kind of distortion for the assessment of the pair has a greater value of some attribute. In this way, scenic (Stewart et al., 1984). beauty of several landscapes might be assessed by presenting pairs Furthermore, applying larger samples of landscape photographs of landscape scenes to the observer. On each presentation, the in the questionnaires in field conditions, with limited possibilities observer would indicate which scene is perceived to have greater for using electronic gadgets to present large-scale colour images, scenic beauty. requires huge funds for printing. Therefore black and white pho- Yet, there are some reservations concerning the notion that tographs are regularly and successfully used as visual stimuli in photographs and on-site observations are alike. Questions con- scenic quality surveys (Kearney et al., 2008; Orland, 1994). Hence a cerning the reliability and validity of the photographic represen- bigger attention to the challenge presented in the title of this study: tations and the judgments have been raised, even when landscape can lay people indeed distinguish different successive landscapes simulations might be of high image quality (Daniel, 1992; Daniel portrayed in black and white photographs, and if so, then which and Meitner, 2001; Jacobsen, 2007; Lange, 2001; Paar, 2006; concepts and attributes make the investigated forest and dune Palmer and Hoffman, 2001). Photographs are not able to repre- landscapes distinctive in the eyes of the people. sent the whole richness of real nature. They are not only less To answer this question, the authors of this study have compiled complex and less multidimensional, but they also offer less inter- a full list of dune, forest and transitional successive habitats of the action than real scenes. The effect of factors such as novelty, sur- Curonian Spit. Then we have compiled all available short-range prise, variety, and sensory inputs (sound, smell) are characteristics viewshed combinations of the habitats in the foreground and the of the on-site observer experience which photographs cannot background. The total list of the short-range viewsheds of the convey (Hull and Stewart, 1992; Karjalainen and Tyrvainen,€ 2002; Curonian Spit landscapes under scrutiny comprised 45 foreground Ode et al., 2009; Oku and Fukamachi, 2006). and background dune, scrub and forest habitat combinations In spite of the above reservations, comparisons between results (Table 1). R. Povilanskas et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118 113

Table 1 Dune and forest landscape views of the Curonian Spit.

No. View type Landscape/habitat type Forest maturity Foreground Background

01 Open view White dunes White dunes White dunes 02 White dunes Grey dunes 03 Grey dunes Grey dunes Grey dunes 04 Grey dunes White dunes 05 Grey dunes Willow scrub 06 Grey dunes Young Silver birch stand 07 Grey dunes Young Scots pine stand 08 Sandy grassland Sandy grassland Sandy grassland 09 Sandy grassland Mugo pine scrub 10 Forest glades Forest glades Mature Scots pine stand 11 Scrubland Willow scrub Willow scrub Grey dunes 12 Willow scrub Young-aged Scots pine stand 13 Juniper scrub Juniper scrub Juniper scrub 14 Juniper scrub Middle-aged Scots pine stand 15 Mugo pine scrub Mugo pine scrub Mugo pine scrub 16 Mugo pine scrub Middle-aged Scots pine stand 17 Forest Scots pine stand Young stands Young Scots pine stand Young Scots pine stand 18 Young Scots pine stand Grey dunes 19 Young Scots pine stand Mugo pine scrub 20 Young Scots pine stand Middle-aged Scots pine stand 26 Middle-aged stands Middle-aged Scots pine stand Middle-aged Scots pine stand 27 Middle-aged Scots pine stand Grey dunes 28 Middle-aged Scots pine stand Juniper scrub 29 Middle-aged Scots pine stand Mugo pine scrub 30 Middle-aged pine stand Young Scots pine stand 34 Mature stands Mature Scots pine stand Mature Scots pine stand 35 Mature Scots pine stand Sandy grassland 36 Mature Scots pine stand Middle-aged Scots pine stand 21 Silver birch stand Young stands Young Silver birch stand Young Silver birch stands 22 Young Silver birch stand Mature Silver birch stand 31 Middle-aged stands Middle-aged birch stand Middle-aged Silver birch stand 37 Mature stands Mature Silver birch stand Mature Silver birch stand 38 Mature Silver birch stand Sandy grassland 39 Mature Silver birch stand Young Norway spruce stands 40 Mature Silver birch stand Middle-aged Scots pine stand 23 Black alder stand Young stands Young Black alder stand Young Black alder stand 32 Middle-aged stands Middle-aged Black alder stand Middle-aged Scots pine stand 41 Mature stands Mature Black alder stand Mature Black alder stand 42 Mature Black alder stand Middle-aged Black alder stand 24 Norway spruce stand Young stands Young Norway spruce stand Young Norway spruce stand 25 Young Norway spruce stand Mature Norway spruce stand 33 Middle-aged stands Middle-aged Norway spruce stand Middle-aged Norway spruce stand 43 Mature stands Mature Norway spruce stand Mature Norway spruce stand 44 Mature Norway spruce stand Middle-aged Norway spruce stand 45 Forest clearing Various Understorey vegetation Understorey vegetation

Other potential short-range viewsheds of the dune, scrub, and For this purpose, all three images portraying the same landscape forest landscapes are either absent on the spit, or are so rare that have been paired among themselves and all these pairs have been visitors almost never encounter them in practice. In June 2014 we 22 times repetitively included into the questionnaires. The images have visited the entire area of the Kursiu˛ nerija national park taking representing different landscapes were paired in the way that each high-resolution black and white images of the short-range view- of all possible 990 pairing combinations of 45 investigated land- sheds of the landscapes. We thus have created a database of 900 scapes were represented in the questionnaires once, and each of images portraying the 45 available short-range landscape view- the three images portraying every landscape should have been sheds. It means that 20 images portrayed every single short-range given an equal chance to be paired with an image portraying a viewshed of the dune, scrub or forest landscape available on the different landscape. The questionnaires also contained a basic Curonian Spit. definition of landscape, i.e. ‘an area of land that has a particular After that, the database entries were submitted to a group of quality or appearance’ (Merriam-Webster, 2014). seven independent experts comprising two forestry experts, two Thus altogether the complete array of the image pairs assigned geographers, two botanists and one social anthropologist e all of to the photo-questionnaires comprised 2970 pairs of the images them familiar with the Curonian Spit and its landscape features. portraying the same landscapes, and 2970 pairs of the images The experts in several stages of individual and group selection have portraying different landscapes. Each image was presented in the selected three photos for each of the short-range viewsheds of the questionnaires 88 times e 44 times paired with other two images investigated landscapes. Hence, the total database of the viewsheds portraying the same landscape and 44 times paired with the im- presented to the lay visitors of the Curonian Spit comprised 135 ages portraying each of the different landscapes. images. These images have been paired semi-randomly in the way Having fulfilled these preconditions, there were 20 randomly that the pairs of images portraying both, the same and the different selected pairs of images provided in each photo-questionnaire. landscapes of the Curonian Spit had equal chances to be included Altogether there were 297 different questionnaires produced and into each photo-questionnaire. given to a group of lay respondents (randomly chosen visitors of the 114 R. Povilanskas et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118

Kursiu˛ nerija national park). The respondents have been approached and asked to make their choices in August 2014 at the exit ferry pier before leaving the national park thus meeting the requirement that relevant visual information were located far from the observer (Stewart et al., 1984). The waiting time in the line before embarking the ferry (5e7 min) was sufficient for the re- spondents to study the presented photos carefully and make their judgement. The distinctiveness of landscapes was tested by applying the chi-square test of the frequency distribution of correct and wrong answers (‘same’ or ‘different’) including both cases: whether the assessed pair had contained the images of the same landscape, or the images of different landscapes. All successive stages of the survey are summarized in the flowchart (Fig. 3).

3. Results

The main results of the study are summarized in Table 2. The results of the chi-square test securely prove that the respondents were capable of statistically reliable correct distinguishing of all 45 surveyed landscape types, i.e., all the different surveyed near- viewsheds of the Curonian Spit are reliably distinguishable by lay visitors of the national park. In all the surveyed cases the ‘null hypothesis’ was rejected at a very low probability (p) ranging from the highest ones in the case of the forest glades surrounded by the mature Scots pine stands (Fig. 4), to the lowest one in the case of the mature Black alder stand (Fig. 5) with grey dunes (Fig. 6) and white dunes (Fig. 7) representing intermediate cases. If the photographs representing the landscapes are carefully selected by a dedicated group of professionals, then lay visitors can correctly distinguish the landscapes and/or habitats even in the case when black and white photographs are applied as visual stimuli.

4. Discussion

Any kind of human activity dealing with landscape is the use of its values that are interpreted in a specific way according to the circumstantial needs. The appreciation of one specific need at the expense of others elevates conflicts (Kaur et al., 2004). Clashing interests hide two major distinctive motives. One can be classified as practical or functional, regarding the use of land, while the other, related to personal perceptions, could be specified as more intrinsic in essence. Practically, the need for landscape planning departs from opposing understandings on the use of the landscape (ibid.). Thus, biophysical processes are accepted as appropriate in- struments for changing landscape features, and human perceptual judgments are the most important indicators of visual aesthetic quality (Daniel, 2001). At the same time discord in valuations also springs from perceptual differences of people, as landscape is viewed through the variety of associations by people, determined by their person- ality, prior experience and influence of culture (Kaur et al., 2004). Therefore, changing public landscape perceptions and preferences in any fundamental way exceeds the mandates of traditional landscape management, and is better addressed in a broader, explicit social-political discourse about environmental values (Daniel, 2001). This statement is especially true considering the aesthetic appreciation of the successive series of iconic and visually distinctive coastal landscapes such as the ones present on the Fig. 3. Flow chart of the research. Curonian Spit. As the appearance of landscapes communicates cultural values (Nassauer, 1995), the debate on the aesthetic quality of forest in order to strike a proper balance among the objectives of nature plantations and shifting dunes might provide a valuable, although conservation, land management and sustainable tourism develop- by no means exclusive, insight regarding the appropriateness of the ment on the Curonian Spit (Armaitiene_ et al., 2007; Povilanskas, considered forest and dune management and conservation policies 2004; Povilanskas et al., 2014). Preference for more complex and R. Povilanskas et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118 115

Table 2 Landscape/habitat types and dominant attributes of the Curonian Spit landscapes.

No. c2 (p) View type Landscape/habitat type Landscape attributes

1. <0.00001 Open view White dunes Spectacular vastness; dunes as iconic landmarks 2. <0.00001 Grey dunes 3. <0.00001 Sandy grassland Familiarity, comprehensiveness and readability of the landscape both as a recreational space 4. <0.00001 Forest glades and a fragile heritage site 5. <0.00001 Scrubland Willow scrub Diverse land cover; equal share of forest, scrubland and sandy grassland in the near-viewshed 6. <0.00001 Juniper scrub 7. <0.00001 Mugo pine scrub Mountain landscape in a miniature; a ‘rue carpet’ 8. <0.00001 Forest Scots pine stand Tidy clean dry forest without understorey vegetation 9. <0.00001 Silver birch stand Structural integrity of forest and understorey vegetation; absence of visual traces of forest management 10. <0.00001 Black alder stand 11. <0.00001 Norway spruce stand 12. <0.00001 Forest clearing

Fig. 4. Representative photo of the forest glades surrounded by the mature Scots pine stands.

Fig. 5. Representative photo of the mature Black alder stand.

ecologically rich landscapes (particularly based on learned prefer- the Curonian Spit. People with different types of environmental ence) is complex and more difficult to identify (Williams and Cary, attitudes agree that the most beautiful landscapes are also the most 2002). acceptable ones (Ribe, 2002). E.g., surveys do suggest aesthetic As it is aptly noted by Nassauer (1995), landscape architects may merit in forests with a variety of species when they create visual consult the genius of the place, but they do not expect the genius of diversity (Ribe, 1989). the place to design it. Yet, quite often aesthetic, ecological, nature Since the majority of people involved in landscape perception conservation and recreation development priorities appear to be are visitors rather than locals (Kaur et al., 2004), the landscape coherent, particularly in the case of the most attractive and salient aesthetic preference in the way it is articulated by the visitors, forest and dune landscapes and habitats which are so common on might facilitate a more optimal decision-making regarding the 116 R. Povilanskas et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118

Fig. 6. Representative photo of the Grey dunes.

Fig. 7. Representative photo of the White dunes. eventual loss or gain of scenic resources in the case of opting for distinguish different landscapes and habitats occurring in the certain forest and dune management strategies. Yet, in addition to succession series from the shifting dunes to the mature forest. the desirability of preserving existing landscape identity, the pro- Distinguishing different landscapes and/or habitats in nature might tection of existing elements, space and functions should not blindly be more problematic for a lay visitor since usually the mosaics of rule out the possibility of new developments emerging with new habitats prevail there. Yet, coastal dunes and forests which are values (Krause, 2001). Landscape preferences evolve over time and characterised by a relatively strong homogeneity can be easier are to some degree dependent upon a person's interaction with segregated visually than the terrestrial ones. The full array of the that landscape (Kaltenborn and Bjerke, 2002). elicited 45 viewshed images represented the whole landscape di- The emergence of a particular cultural landscape, among versity of the Curonian Spit, and it can be concluded from the numerous potential landscapes, depends on policy options, on positive chi-square test results of our study that seaside visitors are prevailing attitudes in society, and on culture (Kaur et al., 2004). well aware of local environment features as they move through This is especially true in the case of the forest and dune conser- different landscapes. This conclusion is valid at least for the coastal vation and management on the Curonian Spit, which is featured by barrier spits which are characterized by visually expressive and changing landscape preferences (Povilanskas et al., 2011). In the distinctive dune, scrub and forest landscape patterns. 1990s, academicians and practitioners have developed a new un- derstanding of the evolution of dune landscapes, their role in References maintenance of the biological and landscape diversity, and their management regime reflecting greater appreciation of the impor- Abbelo, R.P., Bernaldez, F.G., 1986. Landscape preference and personality. Landsc. Urban Plan. 13, 19e28. tance of the revival of landscape dynamism (Doody, 2013). The Anfuso, G., Williams, A.T., Cabrera Hernandez, J.A., Pranzini, E., 2014. Coastal scenic results of this study provide a strong aesthetic evidence and sup- assessment and tourism management in western Cuba. Tour. Manag. 42, port for this shift in dune and forest management policies on the 307e320. Appleton, J., 1996. The Experience of Landscape, second ed. John Wiley, New York. Curonian Spit. Arlinghaus, R., 2006. Der unterschatzte€ Angler: Zukunftsperspektiven für die Angelfischerei in Deutschland. Kosmos Verlags-GmbH, Stuttgart. Armaitiene,_ A., Boldyrev, V.L., Povilanskas, R., Taminskas, J., 2007. Integrated 5. Conclusions shoreline management and tourism development on the cross-border World Heritage Site: a case study from the Curonian spit (Lithuania/Russia). J. Coast. Answering the initial question highlighted in the title of this Conserv. 11 (1), 13e22. fi Arthur, L.M., 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical paper we can con rm with strong statistical evidence that yes, tests. For. Sci. 23 (2), 151e160. indeed ordinary visitors of a coastal national park can visually Atauri, J.A., Bravo, M.A., Ruiz, A., 2000. Visitors' landscape preferences as a tool for R. Povilanskas et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118 117

management of recreational use in natural areas: a case study in Sierra de Cambridge University Press, New York. Guadarrama (Madrid, Spain). Landsc. Res. 25 (1), 49e62. Karjalainen, E., Tyrvainen,€ L., 2002. Visualization in forest landscape preference Ayad, Y.M., 2005. Remote sensing and GIS in modeling visual landscape change: a research: a finnish perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59, 13e28. case study of the northwestern arid coast of Egypt. Landsc. Urban Plan. 73, Kaur, E., Palang, H., Soovali,€ H., 2004. Landscapes in change e opposing attitudes in 307e325. Saaremaa, Estonia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 67, 109e120. Basalykas, A., 1977. The Landscape of Lithuania. Mokslas, Vilnius (in Lithuanian). Kearney, A.R., Bradley, G.A., Petrich, C.H., Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Simpson- Bell, S., 2001. Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual man- Colebank, D., 2008. Public perception as support for scenic quality regulation in agement of forests. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54 (1e4), 201e211. a nationally treasured landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 87, 117e128. Brown, T.C., Daniel, T.C., 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. For. Sci. 32, Krause, C.L., 2001. Our visual landscape: managing the landscape under special 471e487. consideration of visual aspects. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54 (1e4), 239e254. Chhetri, P., Arrowsmith, C., 2008. GIS-based Modelling of recreational potential of Lange, E., 2001. The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landsc. nature-based tourist destinations. Tour. Geogr. 10 (2), 233e257. Urban Plan. 54, 163e182. Chhetri, P., Arrowsmith, C., Jackson, M., 2004. Determining hiking experiences in Laskey, H., Seaton, B., Nicholls, J., 1994. Effects of strategy and pictures in travel nature-based tourist destinations. Tour. Manag. 25 (1), 31e43. agency advertising. J. Travel Res. 32 (4), 13e19. Dalton, T., Thompson, R., 2013. Recreational boaters' perceptions of scenic value in Lewis, J.L., 2006. Challenges of interdisciplinarity for forest management and Rhode Island coastal waters. Ocean Coast. Manag. 71, 99e107. landscape perception research. In: Tress, B., Tress, G., Fry, G., Opdam, P. (Eds.), Daniel, T.C., 1992. Data visualization for decision support in environmental man- From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Edu- agement. Landsc. Urban Plan. 21, 261e263. cation and Application. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 83e94. Daniel, T.C., 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in Lien, J.N., Buhyoff, G.J., 1986. Extension of visual quality models for urban forests. the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54 (1e4), 267e281. J. Environ. Manag. 22, 245e254. Daniel, T.C., Arthur, L.M., Boster, R.S., 1977. Scenic assessment: an overview. Landsc. Lim, S.S., Innes, J.L., Meitner, M., 2015. Public awareness of aesthetic and other forest Plan. 4, 109e129. values associated with sustainable forest management: a cross-cultural com- Daniel, T.C., Meitner, M.M., 2001. Representational validity of landscape visualiza- parison among the public in four countries. J. Environ. Manag. 150, 243e249. tions: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Llobera, M., 1999. Landscapes of Experiences in Stone: Notes on a Humanistic Use of J. Environ. Psychol. 21, 61e72. a GIS to Study Ancient Landscapes (PhD thesis). Oxford University, Oxford. Daniel, T.C., Vining, J., 1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape Llobera, M., 2003. Extending GIS-based visual analysis: the concept of visualscapes. quality. In: Altman, I., Wohwill, J. (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 17 (1), 25e48. (Chapter 2). Plenum Press, New York, pp. 39e83. Lothian, A., 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality De la Fuente de Val, G., Atauri, J.A., de Lucio, J.V., 2006. Relationship between inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landsc. Urban Plan. 44, landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in 177e198. Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 77, 393e407. Mackay, K.J., Couldwell, C.M., 2004. Using visitor-employed photography to inves- De Lucio, J.V., Múgica, M., 1994. Landscape preferences and behavior of visitors to tigate destination image. J. Travel Res. 42, 390e396. Spanish National Parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 29, 145e160. Manning, R.B., Lime, D.W., Freimund, W.A., Pitt, D.G., 1996. Crowding norms at De Vries, S., de Groot, M., Boers, J., 2012. Eyesores in sight: quantifying the impact of frontcountry settings: a visual approach to setting standards of quality. Leis. Sci. man-made elements on the scenic beauty of Dutch landscapes. Landsc. Urban 18, 39e59. Plan. 105, 118e127. Merriam-Webster, 2014. Landscape2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Doody, J.P., 2013. Sand Dune Conservation, Management and Restoration. Springer, dictionary/landscape. accessed 12.07.14. Dordrecht. Múgica, M., de Lucio, J.V., 1996. The role of on-site experience on landscape pref- Eleftheriadis, N., Tsalikidis, I., Manos, B., 1990. Coastal landscape preference eval- erences. A case study at Donana~ National Park (Spain). J. Environ. Manag. 47, uation: a comparison among tourists in Greece. Environ. Manag. 14 (4), 229e239. 475e487. Nassauer, J.I., 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc. Ecol. 10 (4), Emmison, M., Smith, P., 2000. Researching the Visual. Sage, London. 229e237. Ervin, S., Steinitz, C., 2003. Landscape visibility computation: necessary, but not Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Messager, P., Miller, D., 2009. Indicators of perceived sufficient. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 30, 757e766. naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 375e383. Fairweather, J.R., Swafield, S.R., 2001. Visitor Experiences of Kaikoura, New Zealand: Oku, H., Fukamachi, K., 2006. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors an interpretative study using photographs of landscapes and Q method. Tour. through their attributes and recreational activity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75, Manag. 22, 219e228. 34e42. Floriani, L.D., Magillo, P., 1999. Intervisibility on terrains. In: Longley, P., Orland, B., 1994. Visualization techniques for incorporation in forest planning Goodchild, M., Maguire, D., Rhind, D. (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems: geographic information systems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 30, 83e97. Principle and Technical Issues, second ed., vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, New York, Ormsby, J., Moscardo, G., Pearce, P., Foxlee, J., 2004. A Review of Research into pp. 543e556. Tourist and Recreational Uses of Protected Natural Areas. Research Publication Garrod, B., 2007. A snapshot into the past: the utility of volunteer-employed No. 79. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. photography in planning and managing heritage tourism. J. Herit. Tour. 2 (1), Paar, P., 2006. Landscape visualizations: applications and requirements of 3D 14e35. visualization software for environmental planning. Computers. Environ. Urban Garrod, B., 2008. Exploring place perception: a photo-based analysis. Ann. Tour. Res. Syst. 30 (6), 815e839. 35 (2), 381e401. Palmer, J.F., 2000. Reliability of rating visible landscape qualities. Landsc. J. 19 (1/2), Germino, M.J., Reiners, W.A., Blasko, B.J., McLeod, D., Bastian, C.T., 2001. Estimating 166e178. visual properties of Rocky Mountain landscapes using GIS. Landsc. Urban Plan. Palmer, J.F., Hoffman, R.E., 2001. Rating reliability and representation validity in 53, 71e84. scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54 (1e4), 149e161. Gobster, P., 1999. An ecological aesthetic of Forest management. Landsc. J. 18 (1), Parsons, R., Daniel, T.C., 2002. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aes- 54e64. thetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 60, 43e56. Gobster, P.H., Westphal, L.M., 2004. The human dimensions of urban greenways: Pitt, D.G., Zube, E.H., 1987. Management of natural environments. In: Stokols, D., planning for recreation and related experiences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 68, Altman, I. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, 147e165. New York, pp. 1009e1042. Gudelis, V., 1995. The Curonian barrier spit, south-east Baltic: origin, development Povilanskas, R., 2004. Landscape Management on the Curonian Spit: a Cross-border and coastal changes. In: Gudelis, V., Povilanskas, R., Roepstorff, A. (Eds.), Coastal Perspective. EUCC, Klaipeda_ . Conservation and Management in the Baltic Region. Proceedings of the EUCC- Povilanskas, R., 2009. Spatial diversity of modern geomorphological processes on a WWF Conference, 3-7 May, 1994, RıgaeKlaipeda_ eKaliningrad. University Holocene Dune Ridge on the Curonian Spit in the SoutheEast Baltic. Baltica 22 Publishers, Klaipeda,_ pp. 11e13. (2), 77e88. Gudelis, V., 1998. Lithuanian Coast and Offshore. Academia, Vilnius (In Lithuanian). Povilanskas, R., Armaitiene,_ A., Breber, P., Razinkovas-Baziukas, A., Taminskas, J., Hagerhall, C., 2000. Clustering predictors of landscapes preference in the traditional 2012. Integrity of linear littoral habitats of lesina and Curonian Lagoons. Swedish cultural landscapes: prospecterefuge, mystery, age and management. Hydrobiologia 699 (1), 99e110. J. Environ. Psychol. 20, 83e90. Povilanskas, R., Baghdasarian, H., Arakelyan, S., Satkunas, J., Taminskas, J., 2009. Hull, R.B., Stewart, W., 1992. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty assessments. Secular morphodynamic trends of the Holocene dune ridge on the Curonian J. Environ. Psychol. 12, 101e114. spit (Lithuania/Russia). J. Coast. Res. 25 (1), 209e215. Jacobsen, J.K.S., 2007. Use of landscape perception methods in tourism studies: a Povilanskas, R., Chubarenko, B.V., 2000. Interaction between the drifting dunes of review of photo-based research approaches. Tour. Geogr. 9 (3), 234e253. the Curonian barrier spit and the Curonian Lagoon. Baltica 13, 8e14. Jorgensen, A., 2011. Beyond the view: future directions in landscape aesthetics Povilanskas, R., Razinkovas-Baziukas, A., Jurkus, E., 2014. Integrated environmental research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 100, 353e355. management of transboundary transitional waters: Curonian Lagoon case Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., Calvert, T., 2002. Woodland spaces and edges: their study. Ocean Coast. Manag. 101, 14e23. impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 60, 135e150. Povilanskas, R., Riepsas, E., Armaitiene,_ A., Ducinskas, K., Taminskas, J., 2011. Shifting Kaltenborn, B.P., Bjerke, T., 2002. Associations between landscape preferences and Dune Types Curonian Spit Factors Their Dev. Baltic For. 17 (2), 215e226. place attachment: a study in Røros, Southern Norway. Landsc. Res. 27 (4), Povilanskas, R., Satkunas, J., Taminskas, J., 2006. Results of cartometric in- 381e396. vestigations of dune morphodynamics on the Curonian spit. Geologija 53, Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: a Psychological Perspective. 22e27. 118 R. Povilanskas et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118

Purcell, A.T., Lamb, R.J., Peron, E.M., Falchero, S., 1994. Preference of preferences for J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 1e16. landscape? J. Environ. Psychol. 14 (3), 195e209. Stewart, T.R., Middleton, P., Downton, M., Ely, D., 1984. Judgments of photographs Real, E., Arce, C., Sabucedo, J.M., 2000. Classification of landscapes using quantita- vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual tive and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in North- environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 4, 283e302. Western Spain. J. Environ. Psychol. 20, 355e373. Tveit, M., Ode, Å., Fry, G., 2006. Key concepts in a Framework for analysing visual Ribe, R.G., 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research landscape character. Landsc. Res. 31 (3), 229e255. taught Us? Environ. Manag. 13 (1), 55e74. UNESCO, 2001. WHC-2000/CONF. 204/21. In: Report of the 24th Session of the Ribe, R.G., 2002. Is scenic Beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence UNESCO World Heritage Committee, 27 Novembere2 December 2000, Cairns, of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environ. Behav. 34, Australia. UNESCO, Paris. 757e780. Urry, J., 2002. The Tourist Gaze, second ed. Sage Publications, London e Thousand Rolloff, D.B., 1998. Scenic Quality at Crater Lake National Park: Visitor Perceptions of Oaks e New Delhi. Natural and Human Inf1uence (PhD thesis). Oregon State University, Oregon. Vining, J., Stevens, J.J., 1986. The assessment of landscape quality: major method- Scarles, C., 2010. Where words fail, visuals ignite: opportunities for visual ological considerations. In: Smardon, R.C., Palmer, J.F., Felleman, J.P. (Eds.), autoethnography in tourism research. Ann. Tour. Res. 37 (4), 905e926. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York, Scott, A., 2003. Assessing public perception of landscape: from practice to policy. pp. 167e186. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 5 (2), 123e144. Wherrett, J.R., 2000. Creating landscape preference models using internet survey Shafer, E.L., 1964. The Photo-choice Method for Recreation Research. Research Paper techniques. Landsc. Res. 25 (1), 79e96. NE-29. USDA Forest Service. Williams, K.J.H., Cary, J., 2002. Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and Shafer, E.L., Hamilton, J.F., Schmidt, E.A., 1969. Natural landscape preferences: a biodiversity protection. Environ. Behav. 34, 257e274. predictive model. J. Leis. Res. 1, 1e19. Wu, Y., Bishop, I., Hossain, H., Sposito, V., 2006. Using GIS in landscape visual quality Shafer, E.L., Mietz, J., 1969. Aesthetic and emotional experiences rate high with assessment. Appl. GIS 2 (3), 1e20. northeast wilderness hikers. Environ. Behav. 1 (2), 187e197. Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape perception e research, application Shafer, E.L., Richards, T.A., 1974. A Comparison of Viewer Reactions to Outdoor Scenes and theory. Landsc. Plan. 9, 1e33. and Photographs of Those Scenes. Research Paper NE-302. USDA Forest Service. Zube, E.H., Pitt, D.G., 1981. Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage land- Stamps, A.E., 2004. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: a meta-analysis. scapes. Landsc. Plan. 8, 69e87.