Futures 69 (2015) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Futures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Landscape scenarios: A study of influences on attitudes and

actions in a rural landscape
Damjana Gantar a,*, Mojca Golobič b
a
Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia
b
Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Landscape scenarios are a well-recognized and often applied tool in landscape and spatial
Available online 11 March 2015 planning. Their frequent use raises the question of how the use of the scenario influences
the attitudes and actions of the individual stakeholders in the landscape.
Keywords: The study was performed in the area of two rural communities in western Slovenia and
Landscape scenarios focused on two groups of stakeholders, farmers and decision-makers, because these
Markov chain model groups have the ability to directly or indirectly impose landscape changes. The farmers
Cognitive aspects of scenario use were separated into a test and control group and participated in an experiment that
Attitude change included a scenario experience different for the test and control group and ended with a
Rural landscape change
survey interview. Decision-makers participated in a two-round Delphi study, which also
involved a scenario exercise.
Overall, the results confirmed that landscape scenarios influence attitudes associated
with the landscape. The impact on actions was only partially confirmed, as many external
factors that might also influence future actions could not be excluded, such as personal
characteristics, professional occupation or the characteristics of the farm. The study
provides implications for further research, such as the magnitude of scenario impact and
the interaction of scenario use with other factors which might affect the formation of and
changes in attitudes and actions associated with landscape.
ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Landscape changes are an integral characteristic of landscapes. In the rural landscapes in alpine and pre-alpine areas of
Europe, the main drivers of landscape change are related to significant natural factors and topographical constraints as well
as specific economic, socio-demographic and environmental factors, resulting in a variety of landscapes, species and
cultures (Tappeiner, Borsdorf, and Tasser, 2008). Despite the knowledge on the current state of the landscapes and driving
forces, future landscape change is rather uncertain and thus unpredictable, as illustrated by Palang, Alumäe, and Mander
(2000). To aid future-oriented thinking, scenarios have become a regularly applied tool in the field of spatial and landscape
planning.

* Corresponding author at: Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, Trnovski pristan 2, SI-1127 Ljubljana, Slovenia.
E-mail addresses: damjana.gantar@uirs.si (D. Gantar), mojca.golobic@bf.uni-lj.si (M. Golobič).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.02.002
0016-3287/ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13

The noticeable increase of scenario-based studies in the field of landscape and spatial planning and of their use to
promote public participation led to the research question: Could the attitudes and related actions of the individuals regarding
landscape changes be influenced by the use of scenarios? The goal of the research was to assess the role of scenarios in fostering
changes in attitudes and consequently the favourable behaviour in the landscape. The novelty of the research is the
assumption that scenario use could have diverse impacts on stakeholders’ attitudes and behaviours related to the landscape,
the method of scenario development using Markov chains, and particularly the survey including the test and control group
experiment which allows conclusions on causality, and was further supported by qualitative knowledge provided by Delphi
study.
Scenario-based studies began in the middle of the 20th century as an approach to decision-making, and their application
in spatial planning began to increase in the early 1970s (Shearer, 2005). In landscape planning, the term scenario refers to
various probable accounts or alternative assumptions that represent future landscapes. According to Steinitz et al. (2003),
landscape changes are usually directly related to changes in land use and pattern of land cover. The broad use of scenarios
has resulted in a number of various definitions. Among those that explicitly refer to stakeholders, the definition presented by
Shoemaker (1993) explains the role of scenarios in the planning process as ‘‘stimulating creative ways of thinking that help
stakeholders break out of established patterns of assessing situations and planning actions, so that they can better adapt to
the future’’. Here we also expose the ability of scenarios to facilitate the exchange of information and improve cooperation
between researchers, planners, stakeholders and the general public in the search of optimal solutions.
Scenario use in landscape and spatial planning has been presented in numerous research papers that focus on various
aspects of the practice, including its contribution to participative planning procedure and its effect on participants. Tress and
Tress (2003) wrote about stakeholders’ reactions to scenarios presenting unanticipated landscape changes, reporting that
the participants expressed fears of scenario realisation and disbelief that such scenarios were only a part of a research study.
Regarding the role of scenarios in public participation process, Wollenberg, Edmunds, and Buck (2000b) emphasised the use
of scenarios to enhance communication and decision-making and Šantručkova, Weber, Lipsky, and Stroblova (2013)
involved local stakeholders to select the optimal alternative as basis for strategic landscape development. Sheppard (2005)
discussed the idea that landscape visualisations illustrating potential futures may motivate public awareness and
behavioural change regarding climate change mitigation, likewise Kasemir et al. (2003) focused on climate-change issues
and noted citizens’ perceptions. Lately there has been an increased focus on application of scenarios in landscape preferences
studies, e.g., Larcher, Novelli, Gullino, and Devecchi (2013), Soliva, Bolliger, and Hunziker (2010) and Lewis (2008). Although
several observations indicate the impact of scenario use on stakeholders’ attitudes and actions as a positive outcome, there is
a lack of empirical and scientifically sound evidence to support this conclusion. The psychological literature on the cognitive
effects of scenario use reveals a different approach to the subject. Gregory and Duran (2001) summarised the results of
several research projects designed to determine the impact of scenarios. It should be noted that their research did not
specifically apply to landscape scenarios. The study confirmed that scenarios can enhance expectations that the depicted
event will occur, provoking certain behaviours oriented towards realising or preventing the scenario events.

2. Methods

The design of the experiment was based on a model showing the process of changing attitudes and actions (see Fig. 1) as
spurred by scenario. The general methodological approach followed experiments presented by Gregory and Duran (2001),
using control group experiments to assess the variables. Whereas scenario planning concept refers to the theoretical model
presented by Chermack (2003, 2004), applying scenarios as input information that stimulates learning through the
transformation of mental models closely linked to attitudes was first demonstrated by Doyle and Ford (1998) to lead to
improved decisions and actions.
The test area chosen is the most representative of Slovenian rural landscapes in terms of physical characteristics and
socio-economic processes. Although this was a difficult choice to make due to the high landscape diversity of Slovenia, we
assume that the findings are transferable to similar places in Slovenia as well as to other (mainly Alpine and pre-alpine)
regions. The research took place in a test area within two communities in western Slovenia, at the transition between the
Mediterranean and Alpine areas, where predominant land uses are forestry and farming. The test area covered a surface of
84.2 km2 populated with approximately 1200 inhabitants. Although the area is relatively small, its characteristics and
driving forces are similar to the rest of the pre-alpine area of Slovenia. Pre-alpine landscapes cover around one-third of
Slovenia’s surface and are thus the most widespread landscape type. The majority of the land is owned and maintained by
farmers, who most directly influence the landscape. Farmers – specifically the owners of family farms – were therefore
chosen as the primary target group. The survey addressed the entire population of 160 farm owners in the area, with 135
farm owners responding. To complement the research with qualitative information, a Delphi study involving decision-
makers responsible for spatial development and landscape management in the test area was also conducted. Eight public
officials from the municipal and national levels responded.

2.1. Scenario development

The diversity of scenario application contexts is reflected in the diversity of scenario typologies, e.g. proactive and
preactive or normative and descriptive scenarios (Ackoff, 1981; Schoonenboom, 1995; Shearer, 2005); visions, projections,
[(Fig._1)TD$IG] D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13 3

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of scenario planning.

Source: Chermack (2003, p. 64).

pathway scenarios and alternatives (Wollenberg, Edmunds, and Buck, 2000a); extrapolative or normative scenarios,
probable or desirable scenarios, they also include trend, optimistic, pessimistic and contrasting scenarios as well as
other typologies presented in scenario typology review by Barbieri Masini and Medina Vasquez (2000). The descriptive
scenario (Shearer, 2005) was selected with respect to the research design, area and stakeholders because this type of
scenario is used to identify possible futures regardless of preferences, and they are based on knowledge of the situation,
trends and conditions. This knowledge included GIS-data for the selected time frame and relevant driving forces, which
were identified from programming and legislative documents and expert knowledge. The scenario applied in the
research could also be labelled as a projection, as it focuses on the stakeholder projections rather than their desires; it
could also be an extrapolative scenario, which extrapolates probably trends. In studies involving several alternative
scenarios, labelling is usually applied to allow easier communication with stakeholders; however, when using a single
scenario, which in our case is the ‘‘Planned continuity’’ scenario, labelling can illustrate the driving forces and main
direction (Fig. 2).

[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

Fig. 2. Conceptual framework of the landscape scenario; the x-axis represents spatial dimension (further abandonment of rural landscape or intensification,
the y-axis represents economic dimension (depending on external resources, e.g. subsidies or development of local economy). To illustrate the ‘‘Planned
continuity’’ scenario characteristics, it is positioned on the graph in relation to the established scenario type labelling: trend, optimistic and pessimistic
scenario.
4 D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13

Scenarios can either be developed entirely by an intuitive mental process (the ‘‘black box’’), or they can be defined using
explicit (formal) models, as presented also in the review of Amer, Daim, and Jetter (2013). These are the two extreme options,
and the prevailing approach is to combine both kinds of knowledge. Some recent examples were presented by Bryan,
Crossman, King, and Meyer (2011), Dockerty, Lovett, Appleton, Bone, and Suennenberg (2006), and Walz et al. (2007), who
applied various types of modelling approaches and combined it with expert knowledge and/or knowledge gained by public
participation. Models based on mathematical rules are considered to best neutralise the interference of researchers’ views or
predictions, and are therefore more objective. These models also include the Markov chain method (see Philippe, Saad, &
Stewart, 1992), which is useful for describing, analysing and forecasting processes such as migration, employment, growth or
decline of urban systems or landscape change, and is applied in various disciplines to explain transitions in space or time
according to the laws of probability. The theory of modelling land-use change using Markov chains was thoroughly
presented by Briassoulis (2000), and examples of landscape scenarios based on the Markov chain method include Gantar
(2009) and Tappeiner, Tasser, Leitinger, Cernusca, and Tappeiner (2008).
The Markov chain method was applied in our research as a basis for examining the probabilities of land-use changes and
to create a representation of the dynamics of landscape change. Method requires at least two reciprocally comparable
(spatial) data sets, which were obtained by using the digital orthophoto maps of 1998 and 2006 to provide comparable
classification of land-use categories. The cadastre of actual agricultural use identifies nine land-use categories in the test area
based on digital orthophoto maps at a scale of 1:5000 and referred from aerial photographs at scales from 1:15,000 to
1:25,000, in which a basic cell encloses 0.25 m2.
For the evaluation of landscape changes by land-use categories, information on conversion elasticity – namely, mutual
convertibility of land-use categories – and on land-use transition sequences is required. Conversion elasticity indicates the
ability of land-use to change into other land-use as well as the ability to revert to the initial use. Conversion elasticity is
defined on a scale from 0 (easy transition) to 1 (irreversible transition), and the value is usually defined based on expert
knowledge and observation.
For each land-use category in the test area, changes to other categories in a defined time period (1998–2006) were
calculated based on changes in individual raster cells (see example in Appendix A, A.1). Areas of the transitions were
calculated based on known cell-size and number of changed cells. The next step was calculation of the transition probability
matrix, using the following procedure: the value for each cell in the matrix (Appendix A, A.2) must be divided by the sum of
the transitions in the same column. The transition probability matrix gives the probabilities of transitions from one land-use
category to others as well as the probability of non-change. Based on known transitions between the two data sets and
knowledge of the conversion elasticity of different land uses, the forecasts of transitions for land-use categories for the next
15 years are calculated based on the following equation:

pðnÞ ¼ pð0Þ  Pn

Vector p(n) defines the probability of transition of the system from one state to another after n steps. Because the
probability distribution in matrix P depends only on the last known state in the process and not on preceding states, e.g. the
land-use types that occupied it in the past, use of the Chapman–Kolmogorov equation is adequate (Hudoklin-Božič, 1999).
Calculations of the matrix were performed using the matrix calculator accessible via Wims server (http://wims.unice.fr), and
the data were prepared in advance using the computer programmes ArcInfo 9.2 and Excel.
The calculated transitions in land-use categories (see Table 1) were basis for a descriptive scenario, which was presented
in short description and photomontages. Scenario included changes in the following land-use categories: forest, arable land
and gardens, grassland (meadows), pastures and built-up areas. Calculated transitions, e.g. increase of built-up areas by 10%,

Table 1
Actual agricultural land use for the test area for 1998 and 2006 and transitions for a specific land-use category from 2006 to 2022 calculated by Markov
chain method (p (2022) = p (2006) * P2).

Land use category Year 1998 Year 2006 Change Calculated transitions (%)
(m2) (m2) 1998–2006 of acreage (2006–2022)
(%) (m2)

Fields and gardens 570,427.2 316,420.1 48.4 +106,415.76 +33.63

Extensive orchards 101,127.9 110,284.3 +9.1 43,049.22 39.03
Grassland 16,945,663.4 16,980,397.8 +0.2 578,474.98 3.41
Overgrown areas 500,851.1 677,217.0 +35.2 82,697.15 12.21
Uncultivated agricultural land 404,382.5 562,868.2 +39.2 +107,679.32 +19.13
Agricultural land with forest trees 62,386.6 34,839.5 44.2 32,996.45 94.71
Trees and shrubs 307,671.5 146,575.0 52.4 134,925.82 92.05
Forest 62,800,071.3 62,983,163.8 +0.3 +804,101.01 +1.28
Built and related sites 2,435,285.0 2,368,778.2 2.7 +126,240.12 +5.33

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (1998, 2006); own calculations.
 D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13 5

decrease of overgrown areas by roughly 10%, grassland decrease by 3% and forest increase by 1%, were supplemented by
qualitative inputs from development documents for the area, such as the planned construction of a bypass road, incentives
for biomass production and development of public and private services.

2.2. Assessment of the impacts of scenario

The survey was conducted separately for farmers and decision-makers, and involved two different techniques adapted to
each target group: survey interviews and Delphi study. The different scenarios used in the study are illustrated in Fig. 3.

2.2.1. Survey interview for the group ‘‘farmers’’

The survey was conducted through personal interviews using a questionnaire prepared in advance. Participants were
visited at their homes, which allowed proper and controlled use of scenario, photographs and visualisations. Personal
interviewing also provides the highest percentage of participant cooperation compared to other survey modes (Bordens and
Abbott, 2005), in our case resulting in a response rate of 84.4%. As an established research technique, survey interviews are
designed to obtain information and to explore the distribution of variables in the population, but they do not allow direct
causal conclusions. According to Bordens and Abbott (2005), this technique does not allow the manipulation of the
independent variable; it only offers the information necessary to establish cause-and-effect conclusions, and for this reason
the decision was made to conduct the survey as an experiment. The sample, which included 135 responding farmers of the
total 160 farm owners in the test area, was randomly split into two groups (Fig. 4).
The test group contained 68 farmers with the following basic characteristics: 82% men, average age of 58, 60% with a
successor, 22% with a secondary education and 6% with a higher education. The control group consisted of 67 farmers with
the following basic characteristics: 70% men, average age of 56, 68% with a successor, 15% with a secondary education and
none with a higher education.
The test and the control group started the survey with different introductory tasks, which were intended to expose the
respondents to a different landscape and future-oriented way of thinking in order to allow comparison of both groups. The
test group was exposed to the prepared scenario in the form of text and visualisations, while the control group members had
to imagine and write their own scenarios. The task began by showing the groups photographs of the present situation and
asking them to imagine how the same landscape would look in 15 years. At this stage of the survey the importance of
personal interviewing became obvious; some participants required encouragement and explanations to start writing, but in
general they were eager to participate.
The introductory task was followed by a questionnaire that was the same for both groups. Observed and statistically
assessed differences between the responses of both groups established a basis for evaluating the impacts of scenario use. The
questionnaire included questions referring to two themes:

- Questions about attitudes: rating the scenario probability, rating landscape changes, rating impacts of the landscape change
drivers, referencing own activities regarding landscape changes, opinion on required/desired activities of the responsible
actors.
- Questions about intended actions: prediction of future changes on the farm regarding specified land use categories, number
of cattle, tree felling, supplementary activities on farms, shifting of business to non-agricultural, response in case of
subsidies reduction, anticipating the future of the farm.

Finally, information was gathered about the respondent’s farm (size, location, main orientation, successor issue) and
demographic characteristics (age, sex, education, employment). The questionnaire included both closed and open-ended
questions. Whereas closed questions (‘‘Rate listed landscape changes from most negative to most positive.’’) allowed
statistical analysis, open ended questions (‘‘Describe your role in changing the landscape.’’) allowed exploration of the
participants’ perspectives and their ideas on future landscapes1 to be expressed unconstrained by the researchers’
assumptions.

2.2.2. Delphi study for the group of decision-makers

A group of decision-makers responsible for spatial planning and local development was invited to participate in the
Delphi study, which is specifically aimed at gathering the views of experts and primarily used in forecasting and in the
decision-making process (Landeta, 2005; Rowe and Wright, 2001). A relatively small group of the number of eight
participants complied with the specifics of the method and to the limited number of decision-makers in this field. The
qualitative results were used to complement and interpret the quantitative survey results. A two-round Delphi study was
conducted separately for each participant by mail or personal interview. The decision to have two rounds was based on the
purpose of the study: in the first round, the participants independently wrote scenarios for the test area, evaluated landscape
changes and development factors and suggested required actions. The last part of the questionnaire highlighted the role of
the decision-maker in spatial-development and related landscape changes and in making suggestions for future measures.

1
The case of control group, where participants wrote their own scenario.
[(Fig._3)TD$IG]
6 D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13

Fig. 3. Photographs of the situation and visualisations of the scenario for 2022.2

2
Altogether, six photographs were selected based on expert opinion on local conditions and equally representing diverse locations of the test area (the
village and its surroundings, secluded farms, plain or hilly terrain, grassland and forest areas). Photo visualisations based on the photographs were prepared
to cover main scenario contents, e.g. a new bypass road, expansion of settlements, decrease of overgrown areas or increase of forest).
[(Fig._4)TD$IG] D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13 7

Fig. 4. Scheme representing scenario use in the applied research questionnaires and the Delphi study.

The eight individual scenarios were aggregated by the research team into a common scenario. In the second round, the
participants were presented with the common scenario. With this new information, the decision-makers had to re-evaluate
spatial changes and factors. In addition, they were asked to assess the measures proposed in the first round (necessity,
effectiveness) and were given the option of proposing improvements for the measures. In conclusion, their personal opinion
on scenario use and its effectiveness in their work field was solicited, as well as their opinion on the impact of scenario use on
attitudes and actions.

2.2.3. Data analysis

In analysing the data, the mean values were calculated out of individual responses (using the IBM SPSS statistical
programme and Microsoft Excel) and compared between the two groups of farmers, with the goal of identifying responses
that differentiated the two groups. This was done by forming clusters using the K-means method and assessing links to
scenario use for each cluster. Three clusters were formed based on attitudes expressed about spatial changes and other
factors or characteristics and the clusters were labelled positive, neutral and negative (see Table 2).
A similar procedure of clustering was applied in order to create clusters according to intended actions in the landscape. In
this case, the Ward method of clustering was selected as most appropriate as it provided the most diverse clusters for the
given data among the available clustering methods in the IBM SPSS programme. The first cluster, labelled ‘‘moderate
development’’, included farmers that intended to develop and improve their farms or to partly maintain the current level of
cultivation. The second cluster, labelled ‘‘stagnation’’, included farmers that intended to maintain the current level of
cultivation or to partly reduce or abandon their farms. Applying the crosstabs function indicated the main characteristics of
the cluster participants, which are presented in Table 3.
In the Delphi study, most of the analysis was done using qualitative comparison of the results. Some questions allowed
basic statistical analysis, such as average, mean and median. These results were used to assess the divergence of responses
and the differences between responses in the first and second rounds for each individual decision-maker.

3. Results

3.1. Opinion on the landscape scenario probability

The responses linked to scenario use were compared between the two groups. Most notable and statistically significant
(sig > 0.05; sig 2-tail: .000) was the difference between the assessment of the probability of the scenario prepared by the
research team for the test group and the scenario written by the members of the control group themselves. The participants

Table 2
Clusters based on expressed attitudes with their main characteristics and number of cluster members regarding scenario use.

Cluster name ‘‘Positive’’ ‘‘Neutral’’ ‘‘Negative’’

Characteristics Express positive or very positive
attitudes towards landscape changes.
Positive development factors are
attributed very large or significant
impact, contrary to negative factors.
Share of men is 85%, slightly higher
than in other two groups, share of
respondents with successor is 80%.
Express medium to neutral attitudes
towards landscape changes. Both,
positive and negative development
factors are attributed with medium
impact. Group includes all higher
educated participants, share of
respondents with successor is 70%.
Express negative or very negative
attitudes towards landscape changes.
Negative development factors are
attributed a greater impact than
positive ones. According to other
characteristics they are similar to other
two clusters. Share of respondents with
successor is 51%.

Test group 14 (70%) 38 (50%) 16 (41%)

Control group 6 (30%) 38 (50%) 23 (59%)
8 D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13

Table 3
Clusters based on expressed intentions for future actions with their main characteristics and number of cluster members regarding scenario use.

Cluster name ‘‘Moderate development’’ ‘‘Stagnation’’

Characteristics Believe that cultivated agricultural land on their farm will
be maintained or even increased (to a smaller extent), forest
overgrowth will be reduced. Group includes slightly
younger, more educated participants. Regarding
employment outside farm and farm size both clusters are
equal. This cluster includes farms that are oriented to one
prevailing activity either growing crops, livestock or
forestry.
Expect to either maintain the cultivated arable land and
grassland on their farm to the same or lower extent. Areas
of forest overgrowth and forest will remain the same or will
slightly increase. Compared to cluster ‘‘moderate
development’’ participants are slightly older and less
educated. Farms are not focused to one type of production
but rather include, as participants expressed it: ‘‘a bit of
everything’’.

Test group 51 (52.6%) 17 (44.7%)

Control group 46 (47.4%) 21 (55.3%)

were asked to assess the scenario probability on a five-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 5 = very likely). In the farmer group, the
scenario probability was evaluated higher in the control group of farmers (average: 3.8), than in the test group (average: 3.1).
Similar results were obtained from the decision-makers.
In the group of decision-makers, the probability of the scenario they wrote themselves in the first round received an
average rating of 4.3, with all ratings being either 4 or 5. The average rating for the joint scenario in the second round was 4.
The results suggest greater confidence in the group’s own assumptions and projections than in the composed scenario
presented to them. These results were expected, and we were more interested in the differences in the answers revealing
farmers’ attitudes towards landscape change and their intended actions.

3.2. Impact of landscape scenarios on attitudes

Farmers in both groups were asked to rank the landscape changes from 1 = very negative to 5 = very positive. In the test
group, the ratings for changes described as positive were slightly higher and more polarised than in the control group.
Levene’s test and the t-test were used to compare the characteristic differences between the average estimates of individual
changes between the two groups. A statistically significant difference (sig 2 tail < 0.005) between both groups was predicted
for changes in bypass road construction, improvement of transport infrastructure, reduction of forest overgrowth and
increase of the forest. Changes associated with the abandonment of agricultural land and forest overgrowth were considered
most negative, followed by changes related to improved transport infrastructure and increasing population density.
Settlement growth and decreasing the forest overgrowth were considered most positive.
Another question for both groups asked them to rate the listed drivers of change according to their impact on the
landscape from 1 = no impact to 5 = most significant impact. A comparison of responses from the test group and the control
group showed great similarity, with slightly higher ratings of the test group (see Fig. 5). Nonetheless, there was no
statistically significant difference (according to Levene’s test and the t-test) between the ratings of both groups.
[(Fig._5)TD$IG]

Fig. 5. Mean values of spatial change evaluation for the test group and control group.
 D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13 9

Participants in both groups ascribed the greatest impact to factors that usually have negative effects, such as pests,
reduction of agricultural subsidies and climate changes, followed by more positive factors like better employment
opportunities, immigration and improved transport infrastructure. Lower impact was assigned to factors such as higher land
and fuel prices, nature conservation measures and tourism development (Fig. 6).
The open-ended questions, which asked about participants’ role in landscape changes and decision-makers’
responsibilities towards landscape changes, were evaluated next. There was no significant difference between the answers
of both groups. The majority of farmers worked to prevent the overgrowth and maintain the agricultural land, compared to
approximately 10% who were slowly reducing the intensity of maintenance to allow for re-naturalization on steep slopes and
other less favoured terrain. Among the authorities responsible for spatial development, financial measures were rated as
most important, and should be considered prior to implementing measures to improve the infrastructure, spatial planning
and administrative measures.
Further application of the clustering method resulted in three clusters based on attitudes about spatial changes and other
factors or characteristics, which were labelled positive, neutral and negative. Crossing cluster membership with the data on
scenario use or origin (test or control group) showed that the ‘‘negative’’ cluster was dominated by control group participants
(59% compared to 41%). The ‘‘neutral’’ cluster was balanced (half of the respondents from the test group and half from the
control group), and the ‘‘positive’’ cluster was dominated by persons from the test group (70% compared to 30%). In general,
in the cluster that expressed a more negative view of spatial changes and factors there were fewer persons exposed to
scenario, whereas in the cluster in which they expressed more positive attitudes there were significantly more persons
exposed to a scenario prior to completing the interview.

3.3. Impact of landscape scenarios on actions

When assessing the impact of scenarios on intended actions, the differences between the two groups are less visible. In
the test group, a greater number of respondents were classified in the ‘‘moderate development’’ cluster (52.6%) then in the
‘‘stagnation’’ cluster (44.7%). In the control group, the ‘‘moderate development’’ cluster had a 47.7% share and the
‘‘stagnation’’ cluster 55.3%.
In addition to scenario impact, the impact of other factors on intended actions was assessed. The presence of the
successor, the main orientation of the farm business and the farmer’s education and age were shown to be more related to
future intentions or expected behaviour than the sole use of a scenario, and there was no connection of farm size and
employment outside the family farm to intended actions. Supplementing the cluster analysis, the farmers’ answers about the
future of their farms revealed illustrative differences between the responses of both groups, showing a more negative
development trend for farms in the control group (Table 4).

[(Fig._6)TD$IG]

Fig. 6. Mean values for drivers of change for the test group and control group.
10 D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13

Table 4
Beliefs about future status of the farm.

What do you think will happen to the farm, after you retire as head of the farm?

Answers [%]: Test group Control group

Farm will die out (abandoned or sold for non-agricultural purposes) 7.4 13.4
Farm size will be reduced 17.7 20.9
Farm will remain in the current state 58.8 55.2
Farm size will enlarge 1.5 0
Other 14.7 10.5

3.4. Correlation between attitudes and actions in the landscape

The assumption regarding an indirect relation between attitudes towards landscape changes and future actions was
tested by crossing clusters formed on the basis of the attitudes (the clusters labelled ‘‘positive’’, ‘‘negative’’ and ‘‘neutral’’) and
clusters formed on the basis of future actions (the clusters ‘‘moderate development’’ and ‘‘stagnation’’) (Table 5).
The result demonstrates a certain relation: there is a correlation between the large share (85%) of farmers that express
positive attitudes in the ‘‘moderate development’’ group.

3.5. Stakeholder group ‘‘decision-makers’’

The first round of the Delphi study resulted in eight scenarios written by decision-makers. Their content was compared
and assessed according to background information on the education, work field and residence of the participant. It could be
concluded that the field of expertise is an important factor influencing the content of the scenario. On the other hand,
personal involvement, such living in the countryside, awareness of problems and being familiar with the test area, affected
the details of responses and eagerness to participate.
The second round of the Delphi study required construction of a common scenario, which was not difficult because
individual scenarios were quite compatible. Participants were then asked to assess the probability of the scenario and to
attribute value to changes presented in the scenario, the same as in the first round. Differences between the evaluation of the
same spatial changes and factors in the two rounds were examined, qualitatively evaluated and compared for their basic
statistics. Most of the decision-makers changed their evaluations in the following manner: negative evaluations from the
first round became more negative by one or two points in the second round, and positive evaluations increased by a similar
amount to become more positive. In absence of other factors, this change could be attributed to exposure to the scenario.
However, in most cases, the introduction of the scenario did not change an individual’s attitude towards the proposed
development in the test area. In addition, four of the decision-makers were from the local area and thus familiar with local
development issues. When questioned on scenario influence in their respective cases, two ascribed their change in attitude
to the introduction of the scenario in the second round, one generally remarked on scenario usefulness, and five decision-
makers felt no significant influence from the scenario. All the decision-makers shared the opinion that scenarios are a useful
tool, and six of them felt that scenarios could be a tool of manipulation if used improperly.

4. Discussion

The research hypothesis was built on the assumption that landscape scenarios affect the cognitive component of
attitudes by introducing new information and thereby triggering the learning process (Chermack, 2004; Solomon,
Bamossy, and Askegaard, 1999).

Table 5
Crossing membership of three clusters regarding attitude and two clusters regarding imagined future actions.

Crossing clusters reg. attitude vs. clusters reg. future actions

‘‘Moderate development’’ ‘‘Stagnation’’

‘‘Negative’’ 30 (76.9%) 9 (23.1%)

‘‘Neutral’’ 50 (65.8%) 26 (34.2%)
‘‘Positive’’ 17 (85%) 3 (15%)

Crossing clusters reg. future actions vs. clusters reg. attitude

Negative’’ ‘‘Neutral’’ ‘‘Positive’’

‘‘Moderate dev.’’ 30 (31%) 50 (51.5%) 17 (17.5%)

‘‘Stagnation’’ 9 (23.7%) 26 (68.4%) 3 (7.9%)
 D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13 11

The comparison of the test and control group of farmers shows differences that can be attributed to scenario use.
However, statistically significant differences among test and control groups were assessed only for certain answers, which
could be attributed as ‘‘major topics’’ for farmers, suggesting that scenario impact is less decisive than the influence of other
factors. In the test group, ratings for changes described as positive were slightly higher and more polarised than in the control
group, which may be associated with better awareness as a consequence of scenario use. Although both groups were formed
randomly and were homogeneous in their main characteristics, the impacts of other factors could not be entirely excluded,
e.g. the impact of socio-demographic characteristics (age, residence, NGO membership). This influence of different factors
was also pointed out by Soliva et al. (2010) in the research of visual preferences of future landscapes. According to Kearney
and Bradley (2011) participant’s attributes can have important influence on preferences that are interactively affected by
attitudes and knowledge. In this respect, applying the control group in our research was an advantage when verifying the
scenario influence and clarifying it against the above-mentioned other factors.
Scenario impact was also indirectly confirmed by observing the emotional responses of participants in the survey, mainly
the concern or resentment associated with the inability to influence change to a greater extent. The hypothesis was directly
confirmed by the decision-makers who were familiar with the scenario method, who responded to the question as to
whether scenarios can be misleading or even manipulative:

- DM 2: ‘‘Once the development of an area is described and presented, people/residents treat it as more or less a certain fact.
Therefore, we have to be very careful when communicating the scenarios to people.’’
- DM 3: ‘‘In part, the scenarios can be misleading if not prepared in variants.’’

Most decision-makers agreed that landscape scenarios may affect attitudes or even allow some manipulation, and only
one decision-maker responded that scenarios cannot be used to manipulate.
The aforementioned findings could not be directly compared to other studies reported in literature as they focus on
different issues, most often on visual aspects and acceptability of landscape changes for local residents. Few studies explicitly
focus on temporal change of landscape and include scenarios or simulations. One example of a study involving scenarios was
carried out by Lewis (2008), who similarly used qualitative interviews to discuss landscape scenarios with local residents,
and concluded that evaluations of landscape change may be information-induced or dependent on situation.
Research assumptions on the impact of landscape scenario on actions regarding the landscape were supported by the use
of scenarios in climate change mitigation issues and behavioural change (Kasemir et al., 2003; Sheppard, 2005), and based on
conclusions presented by Gregory and Duran (2001), indicating the relatively high probability that scenarios affect
behaviour, especially in cases when the scenarios involve a high level of personal identification with depicted events. To
enhance this aspect, the quantitative part of the survey study engaged only a local population of farmers who were most
directly involved in landscape management of the selected area. The differentiation between both groups of farmers
regarding survey questions on the extent of land abandonment and forest overgrowth indicated that landscape scenarios
provide a level of identification sufficient to influence farmer’ intentions. It should also be mentioned that the intended
actions do not always lead to realisation, and so even if a connection between attitudes and intended actions is expressed,
this cannot be the sole and sufficient basis for speculation on the actual actions of farmers. In this context, Primdahl,
Kristensen, Gravsholt Busck, and Vejre (2010) refer to farmers’ decisions on agricultural practices which affect the landscape
but are not primarily addressing landscape, and may not be included in farmer’s attitudes towards landscape change.
Regarding the scenario probability assessment, higher probability was ascribed to scenarios composed by respondents
themselves, suggesting greater confidence in the group’s own assumptions and projections than in the scenario presented to
them. This is in contrast to research on confidence in the scenarios performed by Schnaars and Topol and Kuhn and Sniezek
(qtd. in Gregory and Duran, 2001), which confirmed higher confidence in the scenarios prepared by experts, or when
respondents’ forecasts were confirmed by scenario experts (i.e., researchers). In our case, local decision makers as well as
local farmers were specific in their perceptions and attitudes towards local landscape change according to personal
involvement (see also Primdahl et al., 2010), and thus rather confident in their assumptions compared to external experts.
According to Soliva et al. (2010) farmers are also guided by non-visual aspects and judge the presented scenario in terms of
compatibility with their socio-economic and other interests.
Regarding methods, the combination of quantitative and qualitative research proved successful. The direct responses,
which (unlike the pre-offered answers), were unbiased, provided key information that supplemented the study and helped
researchers interpret the statistical data. Another finding was the importance of the personal contact when conducting the
survey, which resulted in a high response rate and allowed observation of participants’ reactions. This finding was further
confirmed in the qualitative part of the Delphi study, where differences between local and state representatives and the
impact of work experience and education on attitudes regarding landscape change were made clear.

5. Conclusions

Information gained by the combination of quantitative analysis of the stakeholder group of farmers and supported by
qualitative analysis of the group of decision-makers confirms the hypothesis of scenario impact on attitudes. By comparing
the survey answers from the group that was exposed to the prepared scenario with the answers from the control group, we
12 D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13

can conclude that the scenarios succeeded in drawing the participants’ attention to spatial issues and changes in the cultural
landscape. Scenario use helped farmers focus on the study issues and redirect their thinking from an established framework,
resulting in a wider range of responses and a more positive view in general for the test group as compared to control group.
Stakeholder opinions, stimulated by scenario use, are a useful source of feedback and supplement expert knowledge. Their
opinions served as a ‘‘bottom-up’’ approach, which in our case revealed local knowledge on key processes and factors that
helped to shape the landscape and influenced their decisions regarding farm management (e.g. the significant impact of pest
epidemics in the test area). Considering the scenario impact on future actions in the landscape, it should be mentioned that
intentions considering future management are long-term and stable decisions based on perceived context in which a person
is at the moment of decision, and therefore we cannot induce their change by a single use of scenario. Concerns about the
frequent use of scenarios that could potentially influence landscape changes are probably not justified, although a relation
exists between scenario use, attitudes and actions. The application of the scenario in this research is similar to a contingency
evaluation applied in environmental economics (Field, 1994; Garrod and Willis, 1999) in which the respondents were asked
about their behaviour in a hypothetical situation, e.g. willingness to pay (WTP) for an ecosystem service or willingness to
accept (WTA) financial compensation for a loss of one. The validity of the results of these methods is assessed indirectly, as
objective evaluation is only possible ex post by observing behaviour. The validity depends on several factors, e.g. how close
the hypothetical situation is to reality and to the experience of the respondents. A good description of a scenario, supported
by storylines and photomontages, can help respondents to identify with the hypothetical situation. Nonetheless, the results
are important as an incentive for further exploration, since an ability to objectively anticipate future landscape changes and
related responses of stakeholders is a key issue in landscape and spatial planning.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.
2015.02.002.

References

Ackoff, R. (1981). Creating the corporate future: Plan or be planned for. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Amer, M., Daim, T. U., & Jetter, A. (2013). A review of scenario planning. Futures, 46, 23–40.
Barbieri Masini, E., & Medina Vasquez, J. (2000). Scenarios as seen from a human and social perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 65, 49–66.
Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2005). Research design and methods: A process approach (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Bryan, B. A., Crossman, N. D., King, D., & Meyer, W. S. (2011). Landscape futures analysis. Assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial
policy options and future scenarios. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26, 83–91.
Briassoulis, H. (2000). Analysis of land use change: Theoretical and modelling approaches. http://www.rri.wvu.edu/WebBook/Briassoulis/contents.htm Accessed
22.03.12.
Chermack, T. J. (2003). Studying scenario planning: Theory, research suggestions and hypothesis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 59–73.
Chermack, T. J. (2004). A theoretical model of scenario planning. Human Resource Development Review: Theory and Conceptual Articles, 3(4), 301–325.
Dockerty, T., Lovett, A., Appleton, K., Bone, A., & Suennenberg, G. (2006). Developing scenarios and visualizations to illustrate potential policy and climatic
influences on future agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 144, 103–120.
Field, B. C. (1994). Environmental economics: An introduction. Amherst: Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, McGraw.
Doyle, J. K., & Ford, D. N. (1998). Mental models concept for system dynamics research. System Dynamics Review, 14, 3–29.
Gantar, D. (2009). Application of Markov chain method for landscape scenario building. Urban Challenge, 20/1, 209–220.
Garrod, G., & Willis, K. G. (1999). Economic valuation of the environment: Methods and case studies. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Gregory, L. W., & Duran, A. (2001). Scenarios and acceptance of forecasts. In J. S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and
practitioners (pp. 519–540). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Hudoklin-Božič, A. (1999). Stohastični procesi. [Stochastic processes]. Kranj: Moderna organizacija.
Kasemir, B., Dahinden, U., Swartling, A. G., Schibli, D., Schuele, R., Tabara, D., et al. (2003). Collage processes and citizens’ visions for the future. In B. Kasemir, J.
Jaeger, C. C. Jaeger, & M. T. Gardner (Eds.), Public participation in sustainability science: A handbook (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kearney, A. R., & Bradley, G. A. (2011). The effects of viewer attributes on preference for forest scenes: Contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors,
and stakeholder group membership. Environment and Behaviour, 43/2, 147–181.
Landeta, J. (2005). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 467–482.
Larcher, F., Novelli, S., Gullino, P., & Devecchi, M. (2013). Planning rural landscapes: A participatory approach to analyse future scenarios in Monferrato, Astigiano,
Piedmont, Italy. Landscape Research, 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.746652
Lewis, J. L. (2008). Perceptions of landscape change in a rural British Columbia community. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85/1, 49–59.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (1998). Cadastre of actual agricultural use, Extract from the RABA database. Ljubljana, http://rkg.gov.si/GERK/. Accessed
13.07.2009.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (2006). Cadastre of actual agricultural use, Extract from the RABA database. Ljubljana, http://rkg.gov.si/GERK/. Accessed
06.11.2014.
Palang, H., Alumäe, H., & Mander, U. (2000). Holistic aspects in landscape development: A scenario approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, 85–94.
Philippe, B., Saad, Y., & Stewart, W. J. (1992). Numerical methods in Markov chain modelling. Operations Research, 40/6, 1156–1179.
Primdahl, J., Kristensen, L., Gravsholt Busck, A., & Vejre, H. (2010). Functional and structural changes of agricultural landscapes: How changes are conceived by
local farmers in two Danish rural communities. Landscape Research, 35/6, 633–653.
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Expert opinions in forecasting: The role of the Delphi technique. In J. S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of forecasting: A handbook of
researchers and practitioners (pp. 125–144). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schoonenboom, J. (1995). Overview and state of the art of scenario studies for the rural environment. In J. F. Schoute, P. A. Finke, F. R. Veeneklaas, & H. P. Wolfert
(Eds.), Scenario studies for the rural environment: Selected and edited proceedings of the symposium, Wageningen (pp. 15–24). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Shearer, A. W. (2005). Approaching scenario based studies: Three perceptions about the future and considerations for landscape planning. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, 32/1, 67–87.
Sheppard, S. R. J. (2005). Landscape visualization and climate change: The potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environmental Science & Policy, 8,
637–654.
 D. Gantar, M. Golobič / Futures 69 (2015) 1–13 13

Shoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Multiple scenario development: Its conceptual and behavioural foundation. Strategic Management Journal, 14/3, 193–213.
Soliva, R., Bolliger, J., & Hunziker, M. (2010). Differences in preferences towards potential future landscape in the Swiss Alps. Landscape Research, 35/6, 671–696.
Solomon, M., Bamossy, G., & Askegaard, S. (1999). Consumer behaviour: A European perspective. New York: Prentice Hall.
Steinitz, C., Arias Rojo, H. M., Basset, S., Flaxman, M., Goode, T., Maddock, T, III et al. (2003). Alternative futures for changing landscapes. The Upper San Pedro river
basin in Arizona and Sonora. Washington: Island Press.
Šantručkova, M., Weber, M., Lipsky, Z., & Stroblova, L. (2013). Participative landscape planning in rural areas: A case study from Novorodsko, Žehušičko, Czech
Republic. Futures, 51, 3–18.
Tappeiner, U., Borsdorf, A., & Tasser, E. (2008). Alpenatlas – Atlas des Alpes – Atlante delle Alpi – Atlas Alp – Mapping the Alps. Society – Economy – Environment.
Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Tappeiner, U., Tasser, E., Leitinger, L., Cernusca, A., & Tappeiner, G. (2008). Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of land use on above- and below-ground
vegetation carbon stocks of an Alpine valley. Ecosystems, 11, 1383–1400.
Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2003). Scenario visualization for participatory landscape planning – a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 161–178.
Walz, A., Lardelli, C., Behrendt, H., Gret-Regamey, A., Lundstrom, C., Kytzia, S., et al. (2007). Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 114–131.
Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., & Buck, L. (2000a). Anticipating change: Scenarios as a tool for adaptive forest management: A guide. Bogor: Center for International
Forest Research http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/SCENARIO.pdf Accessed 27.01.15.
Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., & Buck, L. (2000b). Using scenarios to make decisions about the future: Anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of
community forests. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47, 65–77.