Landscape and Urban Planning 63 (2003) 127–138 Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands W.T. de Groot a,∗, R.J.G. van den Born b a Social Environmental Science, Nijmegen University and Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9104, Nijmegen 6500 HE, The Netherlands b Social Environmental Science, Nijmegen University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Abstract A survey was carried out among inhabitants of Gennep, a small-town municipality in the east of The Netherlands, questioning about (1) the types of nature that people distinguish and the levels of naturalness ascribed to these types of nature; (2) the images that people hold of the appropriate relationship between people and nature and the level of adherence to these images, and (3) people’s preference of broadly defined landscape types. Types of nature inferred by means of factor analysis were labeled arcadian, wild and penetrative nature, the last category comprising elements such as mosquitoes and rats in the barn. Factor analysis was used as well to infer images of appropriate relationship, which appeared to hinge around the concepts of mastery over nature, responsibility for nature and participation in nature, respectively. Levels of adherence to the responsibility and participation images were very high, indicative of a ‘new biophilia’ mainstream in Dutch culture. Landscape types were defined, roughly, as (1) landscape made by and for people; (2) park-like, arcadian landscape; (3) wild, interactive landscape and (4) landscape “in which one may experience the greatness and forces of nature”. Strikingly, more than half of the respondents expressed preference for this last (‘deep ecology’) landscape type, with another third preferring the wild, interactive landscape. The highest preference of the ‘greatness and forces’ landscape was found among the respondents with high ascription of naturalness to the penetrative type of nature and respondents adhering to the participation-in-nature image of relationship. Preferences for landscape types as defined here should be distinguished from visual or behavioral landscape preferences. Even if people may not select landscapes of the ‘greatness and forces of nature’ in daily behaviors, these landscapes of wilderness and greatness do connect with human visions and desires. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Landscape; Nature; The Netherlands; Attitudes; Naturalness; Relationship with nature; Wilderness; Deep ecology; NEP 1. Introduction Norway and Sweden, an average of 80% of the respon- dents acknowledge the intrinsic value of nature, that In Western countries in general and in highly ur- is, nature’s right to exist irrespective of its uses and banized ones such as The Netherlands in particular, functions for humankind (Grendstad and Wollebaek, remarkable levels of nature-friendliness are currently 1998). In surveys in The Netherlands, this percentage found to exist within the general public. In surveys in is usually 90% or higher (Van den Born et al., 2001). This ‘new biophilia’, as it is sometimes called, may be ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-24-3611581; hypothicated as a new cultural phase of the Western so- fax: +31-24-3615957. cieties, that is now succeeding the previous phases of E-mail address: [email protected] (W.T. de Groot). nature’s conquest and domestication (De Groot, 1999). 0169-2046/02/$20.00 © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0169-2046(02)00184-6 128 W.T. de Groot, R.J.G. van den Born / Landscape and Urban Planning 63 (2003) 127–138 Apart from this aspect of the value of nature, Van erences to the two aforementioned elements of Van den Born et al. (2001) have coined the term ‘visions den Born et al.’s (2001) visions of nature. These two of nature’ as an umbrella that comprises two more elements concern relatively abstract categories and elements: in order to arrive at a proper connection with the landscape concept, we have separated the landscape • the ‘images of nature’, defined as the types of nature concept into categories that are likewise broad and that people distinguish, such as, in Western culture, abstract, hence without specific visual details such wild nature or arcadian nature; as openness, foliar density or foreground/background • the ‘images of relationship’, defined as the images distinction, and without specific ecosystem content that people hold of the appropriate relationship be- such as forest, wetland, grassland or sea. The land- tween humans and nature, examples of which are scapes thus defined, of which we have distinguished dominion or guardianship. only four, are here called ‘landscape types’. Images of nature have been subject to empirical Thus, our main research questions were: (1) What research before (see Section 3). The same holds for images of nature do people distinguish? (2) What im- aspects of the people-nature relationship, e.g. be- ages of the appropriate relationship with nature do tween nature and health (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; people distinguish? (3) What preference do people Frumkin, 2001), nature and children (Kahn, 1999; have for landscape types? (4) How do these prefer- Nevers et al., 1997) and nature and farmers (Aarts, ences relate to the images of nature and the images 1998; Kaltoft, 1999); Van den Born et al. (2001) give of the appropriate relationship with nature that people an overview. The more ethical/philosophical ‘images adhere to? of relationship’ as defined above, however, are yet Below, the next section introduces the methodology. to be addressed empirically. The present paper will Sections 3–5 then report on the results of the first three present the first results in this area. research questions separately, and Section 6 presents ‘Nature’ in these types of research is understood, the interconnections. Section 7 summarizes these re- roughly, as everything that lives or organizes itself sults and Section 8 gives the overall discussion and outside humans and human decisions. The concept conclusion. of ‘landscape’, on the other hand, usually stands for the sensory (most often visual) aspects of nature, arti- facts and their mixtures, usually taken on a relatively 2. Research approach and method large scale. Human preference for different landscapes has been the object of much literature, e.g. Coeterier With respect to the images of nature (research ques- (1987), Herzog et al. (2000) and Misgav (2000), that tion 1), a quantitative research method has been well connects the visual qualities of landscapes with pref- established (see below), and many data are already erence statements of respondents. available. The component was included, however, in Nature-friendliness may sometimes be glimpsed order to establish the relationships with the images of indirectly from landscape preference research. Ulrich relationship (research question 2) and the landscape (1986) and Purcell and Lamb (1998), for instance, type preferences (research question 3). assert that the perceived degree of naturalness in land- The latter two research questions have never been scapes is a powerful factor in the preference that peo- addressed empirically yet. The obvious advantage of ple have for these landscapes; see Van den Berg (1999, this situation is that in terms of substance, innova- p. 118) for group differences within this general pic- tive results may be expected (see Sections 4 and 5). ture. Respondents in these landscape-oriented surveys Methodologically, however, the issue is how to orga- or interviews are not invited, however, to express their nize the first empirical exploration. One design is to ideas about nature as such or their relationship with first validate the research concepts in qualitative inter- nature. Hence, no relationships between landscape views, and then move to quantitative survey in order preferences and views on nature may be established. to establish the distribution of these categories over The present paper is designed to fill this gap. Our the population. The other research design is to accept strategy has been to connect stated landscape pref- less validated research concepts for the time being and W.T. de Groot, R.J.G. van den Born / Landscape and Urban Planning 63 (2003) 127–138 129 focus on distributions first. Based on such a quantita- through the regular mail; eight were returned to sender tive exploration, it becomes much better known which due to wrong address, and a total of N = 172 com- categories are the most relevant for further qualitative pleted questionnaires were returned, representing a validation and enrichment. We have chosen for the response of 35% (which is high for The Netherlands). latter approach, after an informal validity test that In terms of educational level, the sample contained checked the researchers’ interpretations of the ques- 21.6% of respondents with lower education (pri- tionnaire items with a number of non-researchers. mary school and lower vocational training), 47.6% Furthermore, the chosen method of factor analysis with middle-level education (high school or voca- also contains a validity check; typologies used by tional middle-level), and 29.0% with higher education the researchers for the ‘top–down’ formulation of the (higher vocational training or university). These fig- questionnaire items, if not re-produced in the factors, ures match well with The Netherlands as a whole may be rejected as non-valid (compare, for instance, (Maters, 2000). The age distribution matched as Laumann et al., 2001). well. The same holds for the political affiliations, Against this background, a survey was designed. It with social democrats, conservative liberals and focused on the municipality of Gennep, southwest of Christian-democrats, in that sequence, in the lead, as Nijmegen town. Gennep was selected for its normal- they are in The Netherlands as a whole. By and large, ness; it has no special demography or features such as then, there are no reasons to suspect serious sampling a university, a large chemical factory, a special land- errors. scape or ongoing landscape projects that could set The images of nature were elicited in the same it apart from the rest of The Netherlands in terms way as done by Bervaes et al.