Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 DOI 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x

PERSPECTIVE

The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?

Paul H. Gobster Æ Joan I. Nassauer Æ Terry C. Daniel Æ Gary Fry

Received: 18 January 2007 / Accepted: 18 April 2007 / Published online: 24 May 2007 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract This collaborative essay grows out of a 1. While human and environmental phenomena debate about the relationship between aesthetics occur at widely varying scales, humans engage with and ecology and the possibility of an ‘‘ecological environmental phenomena at a particular scale: that aesthetic’’ that affects landscape planning, design, of human experience of our landscape surroundings. and management. We describe our common under- That is the human ‘‘perceptible realm.’’ standings and unresolved questions about this 2. Interactions within this realm give rise to relationship, including the importance of aesthetics aesthetic experiences, which can lead to changes in understanding and affecting landscape change and affecting humans and the landscape, and thus the ways in which aesthetics and ecology may have ecosystems. either complementary or contradictory implications 3. Context affects aesthetic experience of land- for a landscape. To help understand these issues, we scapes. Context includes both effects of different first outline a conceptual model of the aesthetics– landscape types (wild, agricultural, cultural, and ecology relationship. We posit that: metropolitan landscapes) and effects of different personal–social situational activities or concerns. We argue that some contexts elicit aesthetic experiences P. H. Gobster (&) that have traditionally been called ‘‘scenic beauty,’’ U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station, while other contexts elicit different aesthetic experi- 1033 University Pl., Suite 360, Evanston, ences, such as perceived care, attachment, and identity. IL 60201, USA e-mail: [email protected] Last, we discuss how interventions through land- scape planning, design, and management; or through J. I. Nassauer enhanced knowledge might establish desirable rela- School of Natural Resources and Environment, tionships between aesthetics and ecology, and we University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041, USA examine the controversial characteristics of such ecological aesthetics. While these interventions may T. C. Daniel help sustain beneficial landscape patterns and prac- Psychology Department, University of Arizona, P.O. Box tices, they are inherently normative, and we consider 210068, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA their ethical implications. G. Fry Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Keywords Landscape perception Á Scenic beauty Á P.O. Box 5029, 1432 Aas, Norway Ecological aesthetics Á Landscape change Á Context

123 960 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972

Introduction: human experience and the and application. We also point out where our aesthetics–ecology debate perspectives diverge and suggest where additional work might resolve these differences. The arts and sciences are essential ways that we come While this essay builds upon on a great deal of to know the world, but much of our response to the research and scholarship by others, it is not our aim environment is determined through individual expe- here to present an exhaustive intellectual history of rience of landscapes. Environmental phenomena landscape aesthetics and landscape ecology. We extend from sub-microscopic to global scales and provide much of that background in our earlier change over time spans that range from milliseconds papers and include selected references to those papers to millennia. In landscape ecology the processes for readers below. We also acknowledge an increas- studied can be as small as the home range of a spider ing amount of new research and scholarship address- or larger than a continent. But it is difficult for people ing landscape aesthetic and ecological relationships. to understand, care about, and act purposefully upon This work ranges from philosophical investigations to phenomena that occur at scales beyond our own quantitative empirical research, and focuses on urban, direct experience. Because humans so powerfully rural, and wildland landscapes in the US, Europe, affect environmental phenomena, we contend that Asia, Australia, and the Pacific. While reviewing this that it is highly meaningful and relevant to under- work was beyond our scope in this paper, we urge stand human interaction with ecosystems at the scale those who are interested in this essay to seek it out. of landscapes, defined here as the physical patterns Our efforts also relate directly to an evolving we perceive as making up our surroundings. discussion about the integration of pluralistic view- The scale at which humans as organisms perceive points and paradigms within the field of landscape landscapes, what we term the perceptible realm,is ecology. The aesthetics–ecology relationship is a particularly important because this is the scale at powerful but widely misunderstood manifestation of which humans intentionally change landscapes, and nature–society interactions, and we believe the land- these changes affect environmental processes. At this scape scale of human experience that we describe in scale, landscape perception thus becomes the key this paper represents a strong entry point for trans- process for connecting humans with ecological disciplinary study of such interactions. By exploring phenomena. Particularly relevant to this paper, aes- the significance of this particular scale of human thetic experiences evoked through perception of the experience, diverse perspectives from the natural and landscape powerfully and regularly engage people social sciences and the humanities may have a with ecosystems. This implies that landscapes that are stronger basis for developing unifying, integrative perceived as aesthetically pleasing are more likely to concepts for addressing sustainability issues. be appreciated and protected than are landscapes In the sections that follow, we first establish the perceived as undistinguished or ugly, regardless of basis for our shared conceptual model of the their less directly perceivable ecological importance. aesthetics–ecology relationship and then discuss Aesthetic experiences may thus lead people to change the model in some detail. We next describe how the landscape in ways that may or may not be both landscape context and personal–social situa- consistent with its ecological function. tional context can fundamentally influence this In this essay we explore the relationship between relationship, and briefly review several key exam- landscape aesthetics and ecology and discuss some ples. Last, we discuss how landscape design and issues for planning, design, and management that can observer knowledge interventions might serve to arise when aesthetic goals come into conflict with make aesthetic and ecological relationships more ecological ones. In our past work, we have each complementary in order to achieve ecological goals, addressed various aspects of the aesthetics–ecology and we discuss the practical and ethical implications relationship and have challenged each other’s think- of such interventions. We hope that this work will ing over the years. Our goals in this collaborative help to advance transdisciplinary research and effort are to identify areas where we have come to theory-building as well as promote beneficial land- agree about the aesthetics–ecology relationship and scape change through planning, design, and man- to clarify those areas for further scrutiny in research agement. 123 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 961

Interactions between aesthetics and ecology in activities, but it pervades even the most mundane landscape perception aspects of daily life. Our desire to see, live in, and visit beautiful places and to avoid or want to improve Considering landscapes, what does aesthetics have to places we perceive as ugly fundamentally affects do with ecology? We contend that there is an intimate landscape change. This desire is reflected in land- yet complex relationship between aesthetics and scape policy and management, where aesthetics has ecology that has important implications for those been widely recognized as a non-commodity resource interested in landscape ecology—including natural (or more recently, an ‘‘ecosystem service’’) among scientists, modelers, geographers, land planners, more traditional commodity-oriented resources like designers, and managers. This relationship also is food and fiber. The connection between aesthetics relevant for social scientists, environmental philoso- and landscape change was made explicit in US and phers, and others studying the causes and conse- UK law and policy in the late-1960s. Expert- and quences of landscape change. Aesthetics has not been perception-based methods were developed to assess a principal concern of many of these individuals, landscape aesthetic quality for the dual purposes of however. Indeed, some would argue that aesthetics identifying areas to protect for public enjoyment and has little if anything to do with the ecology of for minimizing or mitigating the aesthetic impacts of landscapes. development or production-oriented uses such as But we think there are important reasons why timber harvesting. These assessment methods focused considering aesthetics helps to anticipate landscape largely on landscape scenery and were applied to change and its environmental impacts. First, as we public wildlands in America as well as to afforesta- have stated above, landscape aesthetics provides a tion of public lands in UK, with an emphasis on critical linkage between humans and ecological maintaining cultural expectations of naturalness. This processes. As humans, our sensory system is tied approach to aesthetics characterized landscape man- closely to our emotions, and of our emotions, agement policy in many countries around the world pleasure has a fundamental influence on how we for decades, but has more recently been criticized for respond to the stimuli of our world. Philosophers, emphasizing the visual enjoyment of natural-appear- psychologists, artists, and designers call the pleasur- ing scenery, encouraging what some have called the able human response that results from perceiving the ‘‘scenic aesthetic.’’ properties of environmental stimuli an aesthetic Third, attention to ecological quality can be response. In the spatial-temporal milieu of landscape, influenced by the perceived aesthetic value of land- this response might more appropriately be thought of scapes. For example, a predominant concern with as aesthetic experience. Most important for its scenic quality led to important advances in under- ecological implications, aesthetic experience ties standing and managing public wildlands in America, our feelings of pleasure to the perceived world, a but this context is only one domain of landscape landscape that may only imperfectly reflect the change. Early policy attention to wildlands prompted ecological functions it embodies. Of course, every parallel inquiry into more obviously human-domi- species seeks suitable habitat by responding to nated settings, like cities, agricultural lands, and the perceived cues in its environment. For Homo sapiens, European cultural and historic landscapes that have the aesthetic pleasure derived from landscape expe- been intensively managed for millennia. The need to rience is both a reflection of evolutionary history and protect and maintain ecological health, diversity, and a key driver of contemporary environmental behav- ecosystem services in all types of landscapes is now ior, including land use, development policies, and more widely accepted. But understanding how people real estate markets. An important issue confronting perceive and experience the beauty of all landscapes human-environment research and management prac- is central to achieving public support of, and tice, and directly addressed in this paper, is the extent compliance with, ecologically motivated landscape to which this behavioral response can and should be change. This becomes especially relevant when modified through design or knowledge interventions. human aesthetic preferences and ecological goals Second, aesthetic experience can drive landscape are not aligned—when what is seen as beautiful is change. This is most obvious in the context of leisure deemed to be ecologically unhealthy or what is 123 962 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 deemed to be ecologically healthy is seen as undis- advocated expanding the scope of landscape aesthet- tinguished or ugly. ics to explicitly incorporate ideas about ecological processes. This ‘‘ecological aesthetic’’ is motivated The disjuncture between aesthetics and ecology by the idea that ecological processes may not conform to the visual qualities associated with a Ecological concepts such as biodiversity, ecological pleasurable landscape appearance, and that this health, and ecosystem services were heard of little, if disjuncture can encourage ecologically damaging at all, when aesthetics first began to affect landscape anthropogenic landscape change. An ecological aes- management policy. These ecological concerns have thetic is, by definition, normative in that it asserts that now become legal drivers for many aspects of it is desirable for humans to take aesthetic pleasure landscape change, in areas ranging from water quality from landscapes that embody beneficial ecological protection to agricultural subsidies. Educational functions. In this way, aesthetic experiences can campaigns have helped to raise public awareness promote and sustain healthier ecosystems, and thus and spur action. In some situations, ecological indirectly promote human health and welfare. arguments are supplanting aesthetic ones as justifi- Those of us writing this paper all agree that a cation for protecting the non-commodity values of complementary relationship between aesthetic plea- landscapes. But while ecological knowledge can help sure and ecological health in the landscape is foster an intellectual understanding of new manage- desirable. Indeed, an ecological aesthetic may be ment policies, such knowledge may not translate into seen as a forward projection of the beneficial aesthetic appreciation of ecologically beneficial land- relationship between landscape preference and ecol- scapes. ogy theorized by some to have been established This disjuncture between aesthetic experiences through natural selection over human evolutionary and ecological functions is at the heart of what we history. What is controversial is whether, in cases refer to here as the aesthetics–ecology debate. where landscape aesthetic preferences are found to Humans cannot directly sense ecological quality, conflict with ecological goals, aesthetic preferences though there may be a tendency, based on evolution- can (as a practical matter) and should (as an ethical ary processes and cultural expectations, to assume matter) be changed. This problem has different that good ecological quality is associated with good implications and possibly different resolutions in aesthetic quality. In some cases aesthetic and eco- different landscape contexts—a topic we explore logical values will be positively correlated, but there later in this paper. An important related question is is no guarantee this will always be true. What is whether ecologically beneficial landscapes can and aesthetically pleasing may or may not reflect ecosys- should be designed to appeal to aesthetic preferences. tem health. Neatly tended countryside and metropol- We return to this key idea—that an ecological itan landscapes may be perceived as beautiful, but the aesthetic should be advocated as a normative aes- deep green of fields or lawns sometimes signals poor thetic—in detail at the end of this paper where we ecosystem health. Conversely, ecologically healthy discuss the ethical implications of interventions to landscapes may not be aesthetically pleasing. Land- achieve a closer alignment between aesthetics and scapes such as wetlands and prairies may be ecology. perceived as unattractive; people may not directly recognize their biological diversity. Similarly, land- scape management practices that effectively conserve Toward a conceptual model of landscape water quality, protect soils or provide other important aesthetics and ecology ecosystem services may not be seen as aesthetically pleasing. Yet, importantly, for all landscape types, Although we come to this topic of research from people tend to interpret their aesthetic experience of different disciplinary backgrounds and experiences, landscape as providing information about its ecolog- we all find that environment-behavior models devel- ical quality. oped in environmental psychology provide a useful To address this conundrum, some environmental starting point for describing the relationship between designers, philosophers, and social scientists have landscape aesthetics and ecology. Environment and 123 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 963 behavior are often described as transactional and and human phenomena in order to illustrate its contextual; transactional in that humans and the influence upon phenomena at other, less directly environment help to define and transform each other perceived scales. In the sections below, we describe by their mutual interactions over time; contextual in the perceptible realm and how it derives from and that human behavior is shaped by the qualities of affects the broader system of human-environment particular places and situations. Change is an impor- transactions. tant outcome of person-landscape and person–person- landscape transactions, and changes that occur within Landscape patterns and ecological processes a given context and scale affect other scales of both socio–cultural and ecological systems. Landscape patterns are perceptible instantiations of In Fig. 1 we build upon these ideas in a conceptual interrelated, interdependent, environmental phenom- model that attempts to make explicit the relationship ena. Spatial compositions of landform, water, vege- between aesthetics and ecology. As with most tation, and human artifacts—singly or in environment-behavior models, we portray humans combination—provide some ecological information and the environment as discrete but interacting sets. at a scale that is readily perceived by people. What distinguishes our model from others is its Perception of larger patterns such as forests or attention to the scale of landscape patterns that wildlife populations, and of smaller features such as constitute what humans perceive as their surround- flowers or butterflies, also provides some information ings. This is the critical perceptible realm where about ecological systems. Beyond this perceptible aesthetic experience occurs and where intentional realm exists a broader range of environmental actions toward landscapes can directly or indirectly phenomena that function from sub-microscopic to affect ecological functions. Significantly, this per- global scales and over instantaneous to geological ceptible realm provides the most active intentional time periods. But because these phenomena are contact between environmental and human phenom- outside of the ‘‘human scale’’ they are less likely to ena—where the process of perception leading to evoke our concern and action. Yet ecological integ- action most directly links human systems with rity and human well-being depend upon elements and ecosystems. We nest the critical scale of the percep- interrelationships across the full spectrum of envi- tible realm within multiple scales of environmental ronmental scales.

Global-climate processes Hydro-geological processes Ecological processes Habitats/ecosystems Landscape patterns Organisms Soil-chemical processes

Cellular/hormonal systems A Physiological systems ction Psycho-physiological processes ic sthat esthet affect Perceptual processes A es lands rienc capes Affective reactions Expe Knowledge-cognitive processes Social-cultural systems Philosophical-ethical values

Fig. 1 Model of human–environmental interactions in the landscape 123 964 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972

Maintaining the integrity of ecological processes philosophical questions that underlie the idea of an and their capacity to provide ecosystem services is ecological aesthetic, and we do not attempt to resolve essential to human welfare and the raison d’etre of them in this essay. our conceptual model. While landscapes and ecosys- Since our conceptual model aims to show how tems affect people in countless ways, our model aesthetics affects ecological processes and their describes how human actions, based on landscape capacity to provide ecosystem services, we adopted perception, can affect ecological functions at scales an inclusive definition of landscape aesthetic experi- that may not be immediately perceived. Long-term or ence as a feeling of pleasure attributable to directly global effects, for example, are often unintentional perceivable characteristics of spatially and/or tem- and unanticipated. Because essential ecological phe- porally arrayed landscape patterns. Even within this nomena operate outside of the perceptible realm, broad definition, we continue to differ among landscape planning, design, and management that ourselves on which characteristics of landscape are create functional links between beneficial ecological considered directly perceivable and on how exten- phenomena and aesthetically pleasing landscapes are sive, immediate, and direct a role cognitive processes key to the cultural sustainability of vital ecosystem andacquiredvaluesystemsplayinlandscape functions. aesthetic experiences. We especially disagree about how and the extent to which knowledge of the Landscape perception and the role of knowledge ecological significance of landscape patterns enters in aesthetic experience into aesthetic experience.

Landscape aesthetic experiences are relatively direct Aesthetic experience as a driver of action and perceptual experiences of certain environmental phe- change nomena. While predominantly acquired through sight, landscape aesthetic experiences can be facilitated and The actions that occur within the perceptible realm moderated by other sensory inputs. Aesthetic are in many ways the most important element of the experiences are fundamentally triggered by affective model in Fig. 1 because actions demonstrate the (emotion-based) processes, which are shaped by potential for aesthetics to motivate and direct land- evolved biochemical, physiological, and psychologi- scape change. For example, while human aesthetic cal capacities and predispositions. The complexity of response to landscape is often thought of as passive, human perceptual response also suggests that knowl- such as looking at lake scenery from behind the edge and cognitive processes can change perceptions. windshield of a moving automobile, perception even Learning to recognize habitats, for example, could at this level can have an action component: from the influence people’s intentions for landscape change. overt expression of preferences (‘‘Isn’t it beautiful!’’) The ecological value of a landscape might, in and of to the ancillary consumption of resources to make a itself, give pleasure to a person who knows how to trip or choose a route for aesthetic pleasure. Such recognize relevant ecological phenomena. This rec- preferences may lead to behavioral choices (‘‘Let’s ognition may occur separately from or along with the stop here and have a picnic.’’) and actions that result feeling of pleasure that is understood as aesthetic in small/short-term (‘‘Throw those hot barbeque experience. Whether the pleasure that derives from coals in the lake so we don’t start a fire.’’) or large/ recognizing ecological value ‘‘counts’’ as an aesthetic long-term (‘‘Why don’t we buy land and build a experience is at the heart of the aesthetics–ecology cottage here for holidays and our retirement?’’) controversy. Some of us would argue that pleasure in changes to a site. As individual preferences, choices, recognizing ecological value should be distinguished and actions are aggregated over broader social and from landscape aesthetic pleasure. A similar argument societal levels, their potential to change landscapes, is that societal and cultural systems or philosophical regions, ecosystems, and other environmental phe- and ethical values that can affect how people are nomena can be profound. In US, for example, the attracted to or repelled by landscape experiences ‘‘amenity migration’’ of people moving to live in should not be considered components of aesthetic scenic landscapes has been identified as one of the experiences. These issues hinge on controversial largest contemporary drivers of landscape change. 123 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 965

Societal actions are further played out through and the landscape, but our discussion has not yet political and other influences on programs, manage- addressed how the specific landscape type and the ment practices, and policies. Across Europe, agri- situation in which the experience occurs may affect environmental measures, payments, and regulations aesthetic experiences. Different landscape types have aimed at protecting ecological and cultural heritage particular perceptible characteristics that evoke interests are resulting in major changes to wildlife related human perceptions and expectations. As we habitats and visual landscape character. These more considered scholarship and research in landscape abstract forms of action institutionalize behavior and aesthetics over the past 35 years, we were struck by may speed or slow individual action to alter change at how consistently specific landscape types were found local-to-global scales. to evoke different aesthetic responses, but how for the The interactive nature of our model suggests that most part these very fundamental differences have not only can aesthetic experiences lead to changes in been only implicit in the literature. This lack of the landscape, but also that landscape changes can attention may stem from the fact that many studies affect aesthetic experiences, such as when a hurricane consider only a single landscape type and a single or clearcut devastates a cherished landscape. As type of situational encounter, leaving context implicit landscape patterns change, people’s aesthetic experi- for that study. Reviewing conclusions across these ences of places change as well, ultimately affecting studies, including our own varied work in wildland, their actions (e.g., choices of where to build or where rural, and urban landscapes, we believe that context to object to logging). In this way, the action compo- must be more explicitly addressed in order to advance nent of our conceptual model describes a recursive landscape perception research and theory-building, cycle in which change can alter the trajectory of both particularly related to the aesthetics–ecology rela- human perception/action and ecological processes. tionship and its effect on landscape change. Our own An important implication of this cycling is that how research experiences in America and northern Europe people perceive and experience change can lead to only begin to limn the aesthetic distinctions that may responses that may make relationships between be attributable to context. aesthetic experience and ecological benefits more Figure 2 is a schematic of how both landscape complementary or more divergent. context and situational context can influence aesthetic Finally, this interactive aspect of our model implies experience. The center of the figure derives from that human reactions to landscape also can change Fig. 1—landscape patterns within the perceptible humans. Aesthetic experiences may produce direct realm elicit aesthetic experiences. The ‘‘landscape physiological and psychological benefits through context’’ box shows that visible patterns of the stress reduction as well as indirect health benefits landscape signal its type, and different landscape through physical activity motivated by the desire for types may elicit attention to different patterns. The aesthetic experience through such activities as hiking ‘‘situational context’’ box indicates how social/cul- or gardening. Landscapes also may change people as tural and personal factors affecting the observer/ they learn from observing and interacting with respondent constitute a situation that also affects that landscapes—for example, as farmers or foresters learn about the underlying ecological processes that produce crops and lumber. Similarly, enhanced envi- Landscape patterns Aesthetic and features experience type ronmental knowledge might change people’s response to the landscape, whether through or separate from their aesthetic experiences. The aesthetics–ecology LANDSCAPE CONTEXT SITUATIONAL CONTEXT relationship thus has implications not only for Land use Landscape Familiarity & past experience ecological well-being but also for human well-being. Spatial extent type Mood Ownership type Expectations and intentions Cultural history Activity (e.g., work, leisure) Social setting (alone, w/others) Effects of landscape and situational context Socio-cultural norms

Our model suggests how the aesthetic experience of Fig. 2 Context component to model of human–environmental landscapes may drive actions and changes to people interactions in the landscape 123 966 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 person’s landscape experience. Situational context fields and tended trees with hedgerow or walled might evoke different landscape aesthetic experiences boundaries give rise to an experience guided by even in the same person under varied circumstances. expectations of carefully tended agriculture or for- For example, a person may have different aesthetic estland consistent with the cultural character of a perceptions about a landscape while recreating than region. while working in the same place. Familiarity, mood, These contextual effects are important because and other personal, social, and cultural factors may they may evoke different types of experiences raising also work to alter the situational context and affect different theoretical and applied problems regarding how the landscape is perceived. the aesthetics–ecology relationship. Explicitly exam- Landscape contexts and situational contexts inter- ining these differences helped us see how our act, as when land uses identify landscape types, and conceptual model (Fig. 1) could be generalized to signal and constrain observer intentions and the widely differing landscape types. Further investiga- salience of attendant social norms and personal tion of contextual differences among landscape expectations. In the other direction, the observer’s experiences could help to build landscape perception intentions may emphasize particular social norms and theory that more usefully addresses complex aesthet- personal expectations, affecting what features of the ics–ecological relationships. While an experience landscape and setting are most salient, what is associated with natural scenic beauty remains dom- perceived as appropriate or attractive, and what inant for American public lands of large extent that actions are most likely. are encountered in the context of recreation, a scenic In the remainder of this section we further identify aesthetic may not adequately describe the experience contextual characteristics of different landscape of private lands or public lands of smaller extent that types, and describe how landscape types signal and bring pleasure to everyday life. These other types of constrain human situational contexts, and potentially landscape experience include, but are not limited to: modify aesthetic responses. care, attachment, and cultural identity. One approach to the aesthetics–ecology controversy might be to Contextual characteristics of landscape types posit different types of aesthetic experiences distin- guished by different landscape and situational con- Contextual characteristics such as land ownership, texts. It follows from our conceptual model that these land use, cultural history, and spatial extent vary different aesthetic experience types could have dif- together to create perceptible landscape types. Dif- ferent implications for actions that affect ecological ferent personal expectations, cultural norms for function. landscape appearance, as well as different types of experiences, tend to be elicited by these different Landscape types modify aesthetic experiences landscape types. For example, publicly owned land- scapes of large extent that are perceived as wildlands In the following sections we introduce and briefly or wilderness are likely to be the settings for leisure discuss four broad landscape contexts. It should be activities, and evoke experiences that most people noted that while we as a group agreed that different associate with scenic beauty. In contrast, privately landscape and situational contexts can modify owned landscapes of large extent that are dedicated to people’s landscape experiences and actions, we did agriculture evoke personal expectations and cultural not reach consensus on whether the pleasure that norms of people working in harmony with nature, and derives from recognizing the ecological, ethical, an experience type that is related to human care. In cultural or societal value of a landscape ‘‘counts’’ Europe, private landscapes of large extent may elicit as an aesthetic experience. This issue affects judg- a type of experience influenced by expectations and ments about what interventions might be most norms that are more directly related to historic effective or appropriate in what circumstances, such traditions of a nation or region, with strong cultural as when aesthetic experiences and ecological benefits attachments to perceivable landscape characteristics should be made more complementary by educating that are associated with those traditions. For example, observers or by landscape design, or when known in areas with small-scale ownership patterns, small ecological benefits should be pursued regardless of 123 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 967 aesthetic consequences. For example, if knowledge patterns resulting from healthy ecosystems and and experience can induce a change in aesthetic type, ecological processes. a scenically unattractive but ecologically beneficial Counterexamples of this mutually beneficial rela- constructed wetland could begin to elicit a more tionship in wildlands are noteworthy and can be positive ecological aesthetic when those who live problematic for landscape management. These coun- nearby become better acquainted with the habitat and terexamples include landscapes that may be extre- hydrologic functions it performs. Alternatively, the mely important ecologically but are not scenically wetland could initially be designed to fulfill those attractive, and landscapes that are highly scenic but valuable habitat and hydrologic functions in a are less valuable or even destructive ecologically. An landscape pattern that has immediately positive often cited example of the first type is the wetland aesthetic experiences, separate from knowledge of landscape, especially bogs or swamps. Counterexam- those functions. Or, the protection of the unscenic but ples of the second type are more difficult to find in ecologically beneficial wetland could be justified on wildland situations, but some have argued that efforts the basis of its scientifically substantiated ecological to protect scenic mountaintops can divert attention merits, regardless of its admitted aesthetic shortcom- from less attractive but more ecologically significant ings. We agreed that different strategies for achieving lands at lower elevations. Conflicts of the first type ecologically beneficial landscapes may be appropriate might be resolved by landscape designs that increase for different landscape types, perhaps building upon scenic values while preserving ecologically important different aesthetic types, and we allude to some of our functions. Alternatively, education campaigns and agreements and differences in the sections below, but guided experiences might be used to encourage an we leave much of this topic open to future discussion ecological aesthetic that better aligns with ecological and research. goals, but accomplishing substantial changes in aesthetic responses is likely to be very challenging Wildland landscapes: scenic versus ecological in natural (naturalistic) wildlands that are usually aesthetics? experienced in the context of short-term leisure visits.

The aesthetic experience most often associated with Agricultural landscapes: an aesthetic of care and the wildland landscapes encountered in the context of effect of knowledge recreational pursuits has typically emphasized natural scenic beauty or what some have called a scenic Relative to the aesthetics–ecology debate, American aesthetic. Landscape perception studies conducted in agricultural landscapes epitomize an aesthetic of care this context have generally shown a strong, positive in which displays of order and stewardship are correlation between perceived scenic beauty and perceived as being in harmony with nature, even perceived naturalness. We acknowledge that natural- though ecological benefits may not be consistent with ness is an ambiguous and contested term, and that that perception. Care is an aesthetic that, unlike the most if not all ‘‘wild’’ landscapes are in fact scenic aesthetic, depends on perceptible cues of significantly influenced by human activity. Yet continuous human presence. It invites human engage- despite the slipperiness of this concept, there is a ment in changing and maintaining landscapes, and preponderance of evidence suggesting that for many this engagement is perceived as benevolent. Reflect- wildlands, perceived naturalness maps closely with ing situational expectations different from the scenic more objectively quantified indicators of ecological aesthetic, landscape features that are cues to care are quality. In wildlands, landscape patterns that are read not only as pleasing patterns and colors, but as perceived as natural are often also perceived as social gestures of neighborly consideration. Particular scenically beautiful and thus scenically beautiful features that elicit an aesthetic of care vary with landscapes may often be of high-ecological quality. landscape type and region. In Midwestern American In most wildland contexts, this convergence may be agricultural landscapes, straight rows of crops, uni- accepted as a happy coincidence. Landscape patterns formly green fields free of weeds, and freshly painted that evoke positive aesthetic experiences, and thus farm buildings connote care. As we discuss below, in induce protective and promoting actions, are also many European agricultural landscapes, features 123 968 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 associated with good care are more dependent on and work there, and there is widespread support for long cultural traditions, and in metropolitan land- their maintenance as an essential part of European scapes, closely cropped lawns and vibrant beds of cultural and natural heritage. annual flowers are among the features that connote The way landscapes are perceived and interpreted care. In any of these settings, some noticeable by different cultures has led to different landscape ecological impacts like visible erosion and sedi- patterns, and these patterns can be identified and ment-laden streams may be seen as scenically ugly, mapped as historical landscapes. At the landscape but many features that look well-cared-for may level, patterns such as landform are important since actually be ecologically damaging. In these contexts, they have been integrated into local perceptions and aligning aesthetics with ecology can be a matter of belief systems. At the site level, the focus has been designing ecologically beneficial plans that also more on the properties of material culture and social clearly display care. systems that describe the use of space. Agricultural landscapes also exemplify the effect Perspectives embedded in the concept of cultural that situational context has on aesthetic experience. landscapes demonstrate the complexity of the aes- Farmers who are regularly engaged in working the thetics–ecology debate and bring the situational land often have sophisticated knowledge of the context dimension further into the fore. Cultural ecological processes that affect agriculture, as well features from more recent eras can visually dominate as nuanced perceptions of landscape features that are and often replace cultural or natural features that salient to the success of agricultural enterprises. On were important to earlier societies. Pre-historic the other hand, people who only travel through monuments may have had a more striking impact agricultural landscapes may have little knowledge of on the landscape of the past than they do today, where these processes or enterprises. While both groups they compete with remains from historic and con- expect agricultural landscapes to look well-cared-for, temporary times. The explicit layering of culture and each group may notice different landscape features. history in European landscapes gives rise to such For visitors, care might be filtered through a pastoral questions as: given personal expectations and socio- type of aesthetic based on a romantic notion of cultural norms, what is the authentic landscape? agrarian life, while for farmers and others who live in Which time period should be given precedence? this landscape, care may be reflected through best Whose expectations count? The situational context of management practices in which commodity produc- active farmers may lead to different landscape tion is a foundation of care. However, both the patterns than those preferred in the situational context pastoral features appreciated by visitors and produc- of those who enjoy walking across cultural land- tion features that farmers are more likely to appre- scapes. Related to the aesthetic of care discussed ciate sometimes undermine ecological function. above and more importantly to the broader issue of Policy and planning can help align these features to aesthetic–ecological conflicts, what happens when better support ecological health. expectations and norms incorrectly assume that the historic cultural landscape was one where humans lived in harmony with nature? For example, inten- European cultural landscapes: the aesthetics of sively managed historic landscapes of northern attachment and identity Europe have been associated with an aesthetic tied to national or regional identity and given precedence For most of Europe, the rural landscape is shaped by for protection, but management for this may have an ancient history of farming and forestry. Traditional detrimental ecological impacts. This is difficult land uses have given rise to a variety of distinctive because historic landscapes, now used to show how field systems and settlement patterns that are often well some European cultures cared for the land in the prized by residents and tourists as attractive land- past, were in fact horribly overexploited and unlikely scapes as well as being valuable for biodiversity. to be sustainable. The cultural landscape aesthetic These distinctive patterns are termed here as ‘‘cul- often contests for space and choice of management tural landscapes.’’ They also contribute to place regimes with legitimate attempts to manage land for attachment and local identity for the people who live both ecological and scenic aesthetics. 123 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 969

Metropolitan landscapes: juxtaposing a variety of ecological roles. Incompatibility among landscape aesthetic responses types may not be a significant issue when they are juxtaposed across a park landscape, but conflicts can Metropolitan landscapes embody perhaps the greatest heighten when stakeholders with different situational variety of aesthetic experience types. Metropolitan contexts disagree in the type of aesthetic experience areas include private lands such as residential and they think is appropriate for a specific place. Nego- business land uses as well as public open spaces such tiating these differing viewpoints can be challenging, as parks and conservancy areas. They range in extent and experiences dealt with in urban contexts may and location from very small plazas and yards in the offer lessons for addressing differing community and center city to large conservation areas at the urban cultural expectations in other landscape contexts. fringe. These landscapes are highly dominated by human intent, though they often include intentionally natural areas or abandoned sites that can look quite Aligning landscape aesthetics and ecology: wild. Finally, their cultural character reflects the prospects and precautions for intervention diversity of the groups that maintain or have an interest in the landscape, and may cater to ethnic Context is very important to the aesthetics–ecology preferences as well as class, user, and interest group debate, and we need to learn more about how it preferences. affects aesthetic experiences. Expectations about the This diversity of contexts invites a variety of types perception of landscape will change across cultures of aesthetic experiences–ranging from a scenic aes- and landscape types. While we leave open the thetic to an aesthetic of care to explicit, normative question of what landscape experiences are purely ecological aesthetics, to other aesthetic experience aesthetic or what experiences are amalgamations of types based on differing situational contexts. These other response dimensions, we do agree that a key might include formal, postmodern, vernacular, kitsch, societal pathway to addressing ecological goals is or other types that may be supportive of, compatible through aesthetic experiences. As a final explication with, or detrimental to ecological health. This diver- of our model, we discuss the use of design and sity of experience types in some ways makes knowledge interventions in aligning aesthetic expe- metropolitan landscapes a microcosm of issues that riences and ecological goals. play out across wildland, agricultural, and European cultural landscapes, though often with their own Interventions through design unique interpretation. For example, in contrast to the emphasis on naturalness in the scenic aesthetic of For some settings like publicly owned wildlands, wildlands, in urban settings well-designed human aesthetic experiences and ecological goals are often artifacts within parks and the backdrop of the city in close alignment with each other—what looks good itself are often seen as adding to rather than to people and provides valued aesthetic experiences detracting from the scenic beauty of the landscape. also sustains ecological functions and processes. But Another important difference is that in metropol- in other settings, aesthetic preferences may promote itan areas, adjacencies between different landscape landscape change that undermines ecological goals. types can be very abrupt and may confront people In these cases, landscape design and related planning, with rapid contextual shifts. For example, in travers- policy, and management activities may be used to ing a large park such as Lincoln Park in Chicago or intervene to bring aesthetic and ecological goals into Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, one can closer alignment. Intentional landscape change encounter formal garden spaces with vivid colors, through design is a powerful way to achieve this forms and textures; naturalistic areas crafted by alignment. With reference to Fig. 1, design interven- master landscape architects to provide scenic aes- tions are human actions that can change perceptible thetic experiences that emulate those found in nature; landscape patterns to build a closer correspondence memorial groves and other designed sites that have between what is perceived and the valued functions high-symbolic value for some stakeholder groups; of environmental phenomena outside the perceptible and sprawling natural areas that serve important realm. 123 970 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972

Much has been written about using design to help and appreciation of some of their ecological features, achieve ecological goals, but our model stresses that people might come to have more positive experiences design that aims to meet ecological goals should also in them, or at least be willing to accept their strive to deliver positive aesthetic experiences, con- ecological benefits as a fair trade for their aesthetic sistent with public aesthetic expectations for a shortcomings. Knowledge interventions can also aim particular landscape context. Landscapes that pro- at teaching people about the negative impacts of duce important ecological benefits are unlikely to last some environmental conditions or practices so that in human dominated landscapes if they are undistin- they might be less likely to engage in them. For guished or aesthetically unattractive. Appropriate example, by learning about the invasive tendencies of design, planning, policy, and management can create some visually attractive plants, people might come to aesthetically attractive landscapes, achieving ecolog- see them as undesirable and refrain from planting ically beneficial landscapes that are also culturally them in residential gardens where they could escape sustainable. into the wild. For example, designers of a formal garden in an While research in public health, nutrition, safety, urban park might select colorful flowering plants that and some aspects of pro-environmental behavior convey an aesthetic of care and also provide nectar (e.g., energy conservation, recycling, and antilitter- for insects and birds, contribute to native biodiversity, ing) suggests that knowledge alone is insufficient for minimize inputs of water and fertilizer, and do not changing attitudes or behaviors, aesthetic theory in have invasive tendencies. Policies that affect agri- the arts and philosophy has long held that knowledge cultural landscape patterns might incorporate appar- does affect aesthetic appreciation. Knowledge inter- ent characteristics that signal to farmers and the ventions relevant to landscape aesthetics come in broader public that conservation set-asides are inten- many forms, from information provided by agencies tional acts of good stewardship. In landscapes of and through the media, to on-site signage, guided and enduring cultural traditions, like the rural landscapes self-guided tours, and more extended experiential in much of Europe, field shapes and borders might activities such as involvement in ecological restora- emulate a favored historic period yet employ best tion programs. The efficacy of knowledge interven- management practices that minimize ecological dam- tions in different landscape and situational contexts is age to the land. For ecologically important but a subject worthy of further research effort. unscenic wildland areas such as wetlands or prairies, mown borders, gateway plantings, and carefully Ethical implications of a normative aesthetic placed boardwalks can convey care, and foster more positive aesthetic experiences. Policy, planning, design, management, and education are all inherently normative activities—introducing Interventions through knowledge changes judged to be improvements. While our conceptual model of aesthetic–ecological relation- A second way to bring aesthetic and ecological goals ships is descriptive rather than normative, the model into closer alignment is by enhancing people’s does suggest a mechanism for achieving normative knowledge. In contrast to design interventions that outcomes. A key outcome is to align ecological goals affect landscape patterns, knowledge interventions with aesthetic experiences to achieve culturally and aim at the human component in Fig. 1 and attempt to ecologically sustainable landscapes. We agree on the change the perceptual, affective, or cognitive pro- desirability of fostering a complementary relationship cesses that mediate landscape aesthetic experience. between ecology and aesthetics in order to sustain This type of intervention might give people knowl- such goals as human and ecological well-being. edge and experiences promoting greater aesthetic However, our model could as easily be used in a very appreciation by calling attention to forms of stew- different way: the same mechanism that can be used ardship that may not be readily apparent, or that may to achieve desirable outcomes could be used to even be interpreted as a lack of care. For example, by promote landscape change that fosters positive aes- learning about the important ecological functions of thetic experiences to the detriment of ecological bogs and swamps, and perhaps by gaining experience goals. Thus, the way in which our model creates a 123 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 971 framework for normative interventions clarifies its we are relatively confident about our scientific ethical implications. knowledge, landscape changes implied by that Some scientists and scholars may feel this appli- knowledge may be incompatible with public envi- cation of the model overreaches the traditional role of ronmental values. For example, in the management of research by prescribing what should be rather than urban green spaces there are many options for only describing what is the relationship between improving ecological health and sustainability. Judg- humans and the landscape. Some of us who share in ing that the aesthetic experience of a restored prairie writing this paper feel that on both practical and landscape that provides native biodiversity is superior ethical grounds it is more effective and appropriate to to the aesthetic experience of a mature non-native approach aesthetics–ecology conflicts by explicitly forest that filters air pollutants and moderates the distinguishing between aesthetic and ecological urban heat island seems arbitrary, and attempts to goals. By treating conflicts directly through a tradeoff persuade with knowledge that do not admit the or negotiation process, anthropocentric/aesthetic and complexity of the relationship between ecological biocentric/ecological values can each be acknowl- functions and human/social well-being can be ethi- edged and advocated on their own terms. Yet others cally questionable. of us think that if scholarship in landscape perception While the topic of persuasive communication is to maintain its relevance for guiding design, often acts as an ethical speed bump cautioning us planning, and management of the landscape, we have against hasty knowledge interventions, similar warn- a responsibility to suggest positive pathways to ings have been waged against design interventions. change. By incorporating actions that affect land- One of the most commonly cited examples in this scape change explicitly into our model, we suggest respect is screening or other means of hiding land how society might choose to achieve beneficial management practices such as timber clearcutting outcomes. We see our model as a useful means to that many people would find aesthetically offensive. explore how and under what conditions various Some have questioned the ethics and efficacy of using interventions might achieve different outcomes, these same types of techniques to hide the visual how interventions operate in various landscape effects of practices such as prescribed burning aimed contexts, and to what extent they can be used to at improving ecological sustainability. In design as bring different types of ecological phenomena into well as knowledge interventions, openness to public the perceptible realm. discourse, a clear ethical purpose, and acknowledg- Those who accept that design interventions might ment that we might be wrong must guide decisions be useful in aligning aesthetic–ecological relation- for what and how interventions are made. ships might find attempts to change perceptions by knowledge interventions less acceptable. In particu- lar, there is considerable apprehension among us Conclusions about the ethics and effectiveness of using persuasive information to alter environmental perceptions and Because human impacts on ecological processes have behavior, especially when these interventions empha- undermined numerous essential and beneficial eco- size fear or threatening messages. Some are con- system services, from adequate clean water supplies cerned about the ambiguity and uncertainty of to landscape beauty, we need strategies for making environmental knowledge itself. The dynamic char- decisions that bring human values and ecological acter of scientific knowledge raises the question of goals into better alignment. Related to landscape whether we should intervene to protect ecological change, we suggest that landscape patterns that elicit health if we are not certain that our ecological aesthetic responses of immediate pleasure or displea- knowledge is true. While consensus does not yet exist sure are an important starting point for formulating in many relevant areas of ecological science, and actions to affect landscape change. While certainly science is always subject to future revision, the not all aesthetic pleasure from landscapes is a precautionary principle would lead us to act in response to ecologically beneficial landscape pat- defense of ecological goals as we understand them terns, we do argue that future landscape patterns, and to monitor the effects of our actions. Even when human experiences, and actions can be devised to 123 972 Landscape Ecol (2007) 22:959–972 create landscapes of all types that are ecologically 5. Gobster PH (1999) An ecological aesthetic for forest beneficial and simultaneously elicit aesthetic plea- landscape management. Landsc J 18:54–64 6. Gobster PH (2001a) Foreword. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw sure. Landscape planning, design, and management HW (eds) Forests and landscapes: linking ecology, sus- that address the aesthetics of future landscape tainability and aesthetics. CABI Publishing, Oxon, pp 21–28 patterns, then, can be powerful ways to protect and 7. Gobster PH (2001b) Visions of nature: conflict and com- enhance ecological goals. patibility in urban park restoration. Landscape Urban Plann 56:35–51 Working together on this collaborative paper has 8. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC (2005) Landscape forced us to sort through our various disciplinary aesthetics: what’s ecology got to do with it? In: Lange E, perspectives, experiences, and differences to arrive at Miller D (eds) Proceedings of our shared landscape: inte- some common understandings about what ecology has grating ecological, socio-economic and aesthetic aspects in landscape planning and management. Ascona, Switzerland, to do with landscape aesthetics, and to more sharply May 2–May 6, 2005. Swiss Federal Institute of Technol- delimit areas for future inquiry. Our conceptual model ogy, Zu¨rich, pp 42–44 of aesthetic–ecological relationships is indeed a work 9. Hill, D., Daniel, TC (in press) Foundations for an eco- in progress, and we invite others to critique and logical aesthetic: can information alter landscape prefer- ences? Soc Nat Res expand upon what we have explored here. 10. Nassauer JI (1992) The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landsc Ecol 6:239–250 Acknowledgments We thank Eckart Lange and David Miller 11. Nassauer JI (1993) Ecological function and the perception for providing a forum for us to first debate these issues at the of suburban residential landscapes. In: Gobster PH (ed) Our Shared Landscape Conference they organized, Ba¨rbel and Managing urban and high use recreation settings, Gen Tech Gunther Tress for encouraging us to publish our work, and Rob Rep NC-163, USDA Forest Service North Central For Exp Ribe and Jim Palmer for helpful comments on an earlier draft Stn, St. Paul, pp 55–60 of this manuscript. 12. Nassauer JI (1995a) Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc J 14:161–170 13. Nassauer JI (1995b) Culture and changing landscape Selected references for further reading structure. Landsc Ecol 10:229–237 14. Nassauer JI (1997) Cultural sustainability: aligning aes- thetics and ecology. In: Nassauer JI (ed) Placing nature: 1. Daniel TC (2001a) Whither scenic beauty? Visual land- culture and landscape ecology. Island Press, Washington, scape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Urban DC, pp 65–83 Plann 54:267–281 15. Ode A˚ K, Fry G (2002) Visual aspects in urban woodland 2. Daniel TC (2001b) Aesthetic preferences and ecological management. Urban For Urban Greening 1:15–24 sustainability. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW (eds) For- 16. Palang H, Fry G (eds) (2003) Landscape interfaces: cul- ests and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability and tural heritage in changing landscapes. Landscape Series, aesthetics. CABI Publishing, Oxon, pp 15–30 vol 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 3. Fry G, Sarlov-Herlin I (1997) The ecological and amenity 17. Parsons R, Daniel TC (2002) Good looking: in defense of functions of woodland edges in the agricultural landscape; scenic landscape aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plann 60:43–56 a basis for design and management. Landsc Urban Plann 18. Tveit M, Ode A˚ , Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a frame- 37:45–55 work for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc Res 4. Gobster PH (1995) Aldo Leopold’s ecological esthetic: 31:229–255 integrating esthetic and biodiversity values. J For 93:6–10

123