Land Use Policy 44 (2015) 145–152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

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

Perception and use of landscape concepts in the procedure of

Environmental Impact Assessment: Case study—Switzerland and
Romania
Andreea Niţă a,b,c,∗ , Alexandre Buttler a,b,d , Laurenţiu Rozylowicz e ,
Ileana Pătru-Stupariu c,f
a
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne EPFL, School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC), Laboratory of Ecological Systems
(ECOS), Station 2, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
b
Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL), Site Lausanne, Station 2, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
c
Institute of Research of University of Bucharest, ICUB; Transdisciplinary Research Centre Landscape-Territory-Information Systems, CeLTIS,
Splaiul Independentei no. 91-95, 050095 Bucharest, Romania
d
Laboratoire de Chrono-Environnement, UMR CNRS 6249, UFR des Sciences et Techniques, 16 route de Gray, Université de Franche-Comté,
F-25030 Besançon, France
e
University of Bucharest, Center for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, N. Bălcescu no. 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania
f
Department of Regional Geography and Environment, Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, Bd. N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The European Landscape Convention (ELC) defines landscape as “an area, as perceived by people, whose
Received 18 December 2013 character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”. Because all aspects
Received in revised form 6 October 2014 linked to landscape are evaluated during the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) procedure, we
Accepted 16 December 2014
assessed the Swiss and Romanian experts’ perception and EIA reports regarding the landscape concept.
Therefore, we analysed Swiss and Romanian experts’ perception of landscape, we evaluated concepts
Keywords:
and methods used in environmental impact reports to assess landscape characteristics and functions,
European Landscape Convention
and how the ELC’s aim and objectives are reflected by the EIA reports.
Landscape evaluation
Canonical Correspondence Analysis
The Canonical Correspondence Analysis performed to evaluate the experts’ perception of landscape
EIA experts integration in the EIA procedure showed a significant relationship among pattern of answers and
experts’ professional background. Moreover, there is a significant difference between Swiss and Roma-
nian expert’s perception. Longer experience in the field and a higher level of education indicates higher
awareness of landscape characteristics and properties, which demonstrates that alongside with the initial
training, there is a need for developing a coherent long-life learning systems having landscape analysis
as a focus.
The ELC is familiar to nearly 86% of the Romanian Environmental Impact Assessment actors and nearly
29% of the Swiss experts. By contrast, most of the Romanian EIA reports analysed do not employ many
concepts of the ELC, while most of the Swiss environmental reports incorporate objectives of landscape
protection consistent with the Convention.
Our study relies on the comparative investigation of representative case studies of Environmental
Impact Assessment reports for industry, local infrastructures, tourism facilities, and wind farm projects,
as well on tracking how the European Landscape Convention is reflected by the EIA reports. We found
that EIA reports from both countries evaluate the visual landscape, thus, achieving subjective assessment
of landscape aesthetics without focusing on social and ecological sub-systems. Quantitative elements of
landscape analysis are mostly absent and it is challenging to evaluate whether environmental assess-
ments are consistent among European Landscape Convention countries.
To overcome the abstract way of evaluation of project’s impact on landscape through EIA procedure,
an improved landscape analysis procedure is needed and we propose developing technical guidelines,
under the European Landscape Convention umbrella, in order to enhance landscape management.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

∗ Corresponding author at: Institute of Research of University of Bucharest, ICUB; Transdisciplinary Research Centre Landscape-Territory-Information Systems, CeLTIS,
Splaiul Independentei no. 91-95, 050095 Bucharest, Romania. Tel.: +40 21 310 38 72.
E-mail addresses: andreea nita@ymail.com (A. Niţă), alexandre.buttler@epfl.ch (A. Buttler), laurentiu.rozylowicz@g.unibuc.ro (L. Rozylowicz),
ileana.stupariu@geo.unibuc.ro (I. Pătru-Stupariu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.006
0264-8377/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
146 A. Niţă et al. / Land Use Policy 44 (2015) 145–152
Introduction
The European Landscape Convention (ELC) aims at promoting
landscape protection, management and planning, and to organize
European co-operation on landscape issues (Council of Europe,
2000). It is the first international agreement which addresses all
dimensions of European landscape and interactions between man
and nature (Antonson, 2009; Conrad et al., 2012).
To put into action ELC’s objectives, European countries should
adjust their environmental policies and evaluation methodologies
(Roe, 2013). Thus, a review of environmental policies of conven-
tion contracting parties may highlight differences among countries
and contribute to the redirection of their existing policies (Perkins
and Neumayer, 2007; De Montis, 2014). ELC is proving to be
challenging to implement due to the complex meaning of the land-
scape concept (Mikusiński et al., 2014). Landscape is defined as a
social–ecological system that incorporates ecological, cultural, and
social characteristics (Antonson, 2009). As such, a comprehensive
evaluation of landscape requires the participation of experts of
different backgrounds (Antonson, 2009; Mikusiński et al., 2014).
Currently, landscape research is for the most part quantitative
when ecological characteristics are investigated (e.g. Forman, 1995)
and qualitative and descriptive when cultural and social character-
istics are explored (Antonson, 2011). Thus, the concept of landscape
is prone to be perceived differently across the landscape dimen-
sions and individual’s background (Mikusiński et al., 2014).
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was developed and
introduced in the 1960s as a tool to improve a project’s envi-
ronmental consequences and to engage the public in the project
planning process (Kværner et al., 2006). EIAs become a compul-
sory legal tool for project endorsements worldwide, but with
different evaluation requirements (Glasson and Bellanger, 2003;
Glasson et al., 2012). Landscape analysis must be part of EIA for all
European countries, and ELC has the potential to unify the evalua-
tion methodologies by providing a common definition, protection
objectives, and measures (Council of Europe, 2000). To date, this
has not been achieved principally due to lack of common evaluation
tools or guidelines (Pedroli et al., 2007; Henningsson et al., 2014;
Mikusiński et al., 2014). Identifying the projects that may negatively
impact a landscape is a challenging task and has been subject to crit-
icism due to the lack of transparency and reproducibility (Lindblom,
2012). Even in the countries where EIA process is coordinated by
a common legal framework such as European Union, the proce-
dures vary among states, depending on how the environmental
concepts are perceived by experts or stakeholders involved in the
process (Glasson and Bellanger, 2003). Thus, the examination of
the experts’ perception is an important step in evaluating the effi-
ciency and applicability of EIA procedures at the local, national, and
European levels (Peterlin et al., 2008). Landscape perception and
use by environmental planning actors was the subject of a number
of studies and a common outcome was that stakeholders involve-
ment in landscape analysis is required, which implies raising their
awareness (Scott, 2011). Additionally, there are disagreements on
the quality of landscape analysis conducted in the EIA procedure
(e.g. Byron et al., 2000; Wood, 2008; Antonson, 2011). Several
emerging studies on the use of landscape analysis in Environmental
Impact Assessment processes, highlight the divergent treatment of
the subject among experts, even at national level. As an example,
Antonson (2011) and Henningsson et al. (2014) found a lack of a
comprehensive understanding of the landscape as a shortcoming
of the EIA process in Sweden.
To emphasize the national environmental policies that shape
the perception of landscape concepts and its application in the
Environmental Impact Assessment process, we contrasted experts’
perception of these concepts and relevant EIA studies of two Euro-
pean Landscape Convention parties: Switzerland and Romania.
These two European countries demonstrate institutional differ-
ences: Switzerland being a federal country with independent
administrative units (cantons) and well developed economy, con-
versely, Romania is a centralized state, a member of the European
Union, with a communist past and an emerging economy (Tudor
et al., 2014). Concerning landscape protection, Swiss authorities are
implementing an environmentally friendly planning process when
compared to other European countries (Hersperger and Bürgi,
2010), which makes it motivating to analyse in order to determine
why the Swiss approach is so successful. By contrast, in Romania,
landscape planning is deficient in planning policies and requires
structural reform to be fully integrated into the EU policy system
(Ministry of Development – Public Works and Housing, 2008; Tudor
et al., 2014). Our study objectives are (a) to survey how the environ-
mental experts from Switzerland and Romania perceive and define
landscape, (b) to evaluate concepts and methods used in EIA reports
to assess landscape characteristics and functions, and (c) to evalu-
ate how the European Landscape Convention’s aim and objectives
are reflected by the environmental impact reports. The two con-
trasted countries have the potential to demonstrate the need of
implementing a consistent landscape analysis with the European
Landscape Convention intent and objectives.
Methods
Legal framework
Romania ratified the ELC in July 2002, being one of the first
countries to apply this convention. Formerly, Romanian landscape
related studies were predominantly theoretical and descriptive,
frequently included in the physical-geographical studies (Pătru-
Stupariu, 2011). Presently, landscape studies are connected with
mainstream studies and related to quantitative analysis of spatial
landscape patterns (e.g. Huzui et al., 2012), cultural landscape (e.g.
Stoiculescu et al., 2014), or biodiversity conservation (e.g. Pătru-
Stupariu et al., 2013).
ELC came into force in Switzerland in 2013. By contrast with
Romania, Swiss landscape studies were connected to the main-
stream studies addressing all dimension of the landscape (e.g. Bauer
et al., 2009; Waltert et al., 2011; Sayer et al., 2013; Tobias and
Müller-Wahl, 2013).
Landscape protection legal framework is well designed in
Switzerland, with national and regional laws such as “Federal Law
on the Protection of Nature and Landscape” (LPN, RS 451, 1 July
1966), and, at the canton’s level, the “Spatial Planning Act” and the
“Nature, Landscape and Heritage Protection Act”. “Swiss Landscape
Draft” and “Landscape 2020” are two policy documents framing
landscape policy in Switzerland, while Romania is lacking simi-
lar rules (Depoorter, 2013). Within Romania, the only statutory
law framing the landscape protection is the Environmental Pro-
tection Law (Dutu et al., 2003) which is a framework law for the
environmental policy field.
Since 1986, in Switzerland, projects which might significantly
affect the environment must provide an Environmental Impact
Assessment report (OFEV, 2009). In Romania, the EIA report was
introduced in 1990, the legislation being updated in 1997 and 2002
(Nistor et al., 2003).
In Switzerland and Romania, EIA procedures evaluate projects,
plans, and ongoing activities impact on multiple environmental ele-
ments, among them: air, water, health, biodiversity, and soil (OFEV,
2009; Dutu et al., 2003). Based on assessed activity, the reports
that are assessing the impact on the environment are: Environ-
mental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for evaluation of projects,
Environmental report (SEA) for evaluation of policies, plans and
programmes and Environmental Balance (EB) for evaluation of
 A. Niţă et al. / Land Use Policy 44 (2015) 145–152 147

Table 1 analysis should be included in a separate section in EIA reports, as a

Standardized survey form used to assess the perception and use of landscape concept
proxy of the analysis’ importance in assessing projects’ impact. Fur-
among Swiss and Romanian EIA experts.
thermore, we investigated the requirement of landscape analysis
Response variables Explanatory variables in different impact assessment reports (i.e. Environmental Impact
R1a – Landscape refers to the biotic NatCH – Swiss nationality Assessment reports – EIA, Environmental Balance – EB, and envi-
elements ronmental reports – SEA). A complementary question regarding
R1b – Landscape refers to the cultural NatRO – Romanian nationality landscape analysis relevance was the importance of the analysis
elements
of project’s impact on landscape when compared with the analy-
R1c – Landscape refers to the urban E12AY/N – Profession Architect
elements or Landscape planner Yes/No sis of project’s impact on air quality, biodiversity, human health,
R2 – Landscape assessment should be a E12BY/N – Profession Biologist soil, and water quality. Finally, we questioned the familiarity with
distinct chapter in EIA or Ecologist Yes/No landscape assessment techniques (i.e. mathematical, visual), the
R3EIA – EIA should include landscape E12EY/N – Profession
knowledge of widely used landscape indicators, the knowledge of
assessment Environmental Engineer
Yes/No ELC and other landscape protection laws, and if the experts can
R3EB – EB should include landscape E12GY/N – Profession recall EIA studies with clear reference to ELC.
assessment Geographers or Geologist Additionally, we submitted questions which sought to explain
Yes/No the choice of answers (i.e. explanatory variables – Table 1).
R3SEA – SEA should include landscape E12OY/N – Other EIA related
The first explanatory question refers to the nationality of the
assessment profession Yes/No
R4 – Landscape assessment – E13 – Education respondent (Romanian or Swiss nationality) as we aim to inves-
important chapter tigate differences between the two countries. Moreover, we
R5a – Higher and Equal Importance E14OY/N – Workplace asked for their profession to explore whatever professional
given to Landscape compared to Air Academia or NGOs Yes/No
background can explain differences between experts’ answer pat-
Assessment
R5b – Higher and Equal Importance E14EY/N – Workplace
tern. We considered relevant to our study architects/landscape
given to Landscape compared to Environmental and planning planners, biologists/ecologists, environmental engineers, geogra-
Biodiversity Assessment agencies Yes/No phers/geologists with experience in EIA, other profession related to
R5h – Higher and Equal Importance E14PY/N – Workplace Private EIA such as environmental auditors. The next questions refer to the
given to Landscape compared to companies Yes/No
education level (bachelor, master, PhD studies), employment insti-
Human Health Risk
R5s – Higher and Equal Importance E15 – Years of experience in tution (environmental and planning agencies, Academia or NGOs,
given to Landscape compared to Soil the field private companies), years of experience in the field, age of respon-
Assessment dents (as a proxy for overall experience) and the degree in which
R5w – Higher and Equal Importance E17 – Degree of GIS use in daily
GIS is used in respondents’ daily work (as we expect GIS users to
given to Landscape compared to work
Water Assessment
be comfortable with landscape analyses).
R7m – Mathematical analysis should E18 – Age of respondent The online survey was submitted to 500 experts involved in the
be included in landscape assessment EIA process (285 – Romanian, 215 – Switzerland). 64 Romanian
R7v – Visual analysis should be and 60 Swiss EIA experts responded. The initial pool of experts was
included in landscape assessment
extracted from databases of EIA practitioners in both countries;
R8b – Knowledge of Indicator of
Biological Territorial Capacity those belonging to environmental and planning authorities, envi-
R8h – Knowledge of Indicator of ronmental assessment companies, freelancer experts, academia
Human Pressure indicators faculty, or NGOs active in the field. Assistance and feedback has
R8n – Knowledge of Indicator of
been provided to respondents when requested.
Naturalness
R8f – Knowledge of Landscape
To investigate patterns of relationship between the experts’
Fragmentation answers and the quantitative and qualitative explanatory variables
R8v – Knowledge of Visual Perceptual we used Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA), a multivari-
Indicators ate constrained ordination technique, largely used by ecologists
R9 – Familiarity with ELC content
(Borcard et al., 2011) and social scientists (Palmer, 1993; Greenacre,
R10 – Other international landscape
protecting laws 2010a). CCA searches for orthogonal axes data points that max-
R11 – Reference to ELC in EIA studies imize the variance of a response variable while constrained by
the explanatory variables (Greenacre, 2010b). In our study, the
statistical unit is the individual expert, the most useful result
ongoing activities (Dutu et al., 2003). Hereafter, we used EIA reports being an ordination biplot that identifies the chi-squared distance
to designate all environmental assessment procedures. among experts, where the position of each question is controlled
by its contribution to the CCA axes (Quétier et al., 2010). The
Perception of landscape by EIA experts CCA biplot highlights the questions which contribute most to the
explained variance of the survey results and differentiates the
To collect data on the Romanian and Swiss experts’ perception experts (Palmer, 1993).
of landscape and the use of landscape analysis in EIA process in both For CCA analysis we coded survey’s responses with binary
countries, we designed a standardized online survey. This standard- or multiple choices, as dummy variables. The resulting matrix
ized online survey included closing-ended nominal polytomous consisted of 23 response variables relevant to landscape percep-
questions, which allowed us to better integrate the answers into tion and its impact integration in EIA, as well as 14 explanatory
a statistical analysis, and open questions for recommendations and variables accounting for the answers regarding the respondents’
personal views. experience and background (Table 1). To compare the Romanian
The standardized online survey included several questions con- and Swiss answers we created two CCA models. The first CCA
cerning the integration of landscape analyses in EIA (i.e. response model provides an ordination of all explanatory variables taking
variables Table 1). A first question infers what should be studied into account the nationality of the experts. The second CCA model
in a landscape analysis (biotic, cultural and urban elements). This was a reduced model, obtained after removing the country effect
question allowed us to understand which landscape dimension is (i.e. without nationality as an explanatory variable) and statisti-
better recognized by the experts. Then, we asked if the landscape cally non-significant explanatory variables. The first model explains
148 A. Niţă et al. / Land Use Policy 44 (2015) 145–152

Table 2
Overview of landscape related aspects analysed in EIA reports.

Specific aspects investigated by means of checklists

Landscape Concept Usage
Proxy Terms for Landscape
Promotion of Landscape Training and Education
Landscape Identification and Assessment
Landscape Monitoring
Intent of ELC reflected
Connection with ELC articles
Opportunities for improvement

the differences among the two countries, while the second model
reveals the answer’s pattern for the entire pool of experts.
The statistical significance of CCA analyses (i.e. the significance
of overall models, axes and of each explanatory variable) was tested
using a permutation tests (1000 permutations), at ˛ = 0.05. CCA was
carried out using vegan package (Oksanen et al., 2013) in the R
environment (R Core Team, 2013).

Fig. 1. Scatter plot of Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) representing 124

experts’ answers. Points in black represent the Romanian experts, points in grey
Use of landscape in environmental assessment studies
those of Switzerland. Abbreviations of variables are given in Table 1.

To understand the use of landscape concepts in environmen-

tal impact analyses, we initially identified 100 Romanian and 100 Results
Swiss EIA reports and then randomly selected 20 case studies
for each country. The studies were identified and retrieved by Perception of the landscape concept and its relationship to EIA
searching the environmental authorities’ databases. The Roma-
nian databases are in the public domain and can be accessed Patterns of experts’ perception
without usage restrictions. For Switzerland, we received the envi- The Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) showed a sig-
ronmental impact studies from Federal and Cantonal Offices for nificant relationship among experts’ choice of answers and their
the Environment. These case studies were selected from fields background both for CCA model including all explanatory vari-
of activity with an obvious impact on landscape, such as indus- ables, and hence the nationality (Fmodel 1 = 2.12, p < 0.001, Fig. 1) and
try, local infrastructures, tourism, and wind farms (Annex 1) and CCA model excluding nationality from the explanatory variables
were examined concerning their approach to landscape integration (Fmodel 2 = 2.16, p < 0.001, Fig. 2).
in EIA procedures and their compliance within the provisions of The CCA model taking into account the potential difference
the ELC. between Romania and Switzerland (Fig. 1) explains 17.2% from vari-
Our goal was to determine if ELC provisions were reflected in ation in data and the first two axes capture 68.45% (axis 1 = 51%, axis
these reports (i.e. the reports reflect ELC’s aims, objectives, and 2 = 17.45%) from the constrained variability, thus, reflecting most of
specific points set out in Articles 5 – General Measures and 6 – the pattern of answers. Axis 1 reflects significant differences among
Specific Measures) (Council of Europe, 2008). Articles 5 and 6 sug-
gest how the convention’s objectives should be implemented (Roe
et al., 2008) and combined with the convention’s aims and objec-
tives allowed us to interpret the use of landscape concepts in EIA
studies.
EIA reports were examined by means of a standard data form for
the approach in which the landscape’s lexicon was used (Annex 2).
We recorded the way in which the concept of landscape was under-
stood and how it was used under a set of criteria related to a specific
vocabulary, intent and key measures set out in the ELC (Table 2)
(Roe et al., 2008). To record the degree by which the ELC vision was
reflected in the examined studies we used the following classifica-
tions (Roe et al., 2008): Fully expressed (i.e. the EIA report reproduces
the full dimensions of the landscape concept and clearly reflects the
objectives of Articles 5 and 6); Largely expressed (i.e. the relevant
language of EIA report may not have clear links with landscape
as defined by ELC, or may not clearly reflect the ELC’s objectives,
but the ELC intent is reasonably reflected); Partially expressed (i.e.
the EIA report reflects one or several elements of Articles 5 and 6
of ELC and implies the understanding of holistic concept of land-
scape); Vaguely expressed (i.e. the landscape concept as defined by
ELC is ambiguous; there is only some landscape-related language
or analyses that might be linked with the ELC’s vision).
Fig. 2. Scatter plot of Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) representing 124
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, experts’ answers, after removal of the country effect. Points in black represent
in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol. the Romanian experts, points in grey those of Switzerland. Only Axis 1 (CCA1) is
2014.12.006. statistically significant. Abbreviations of variables are given in Table 1.
 A. Niţă et al. / Land Use Policy 44 (2015) 145–152 149

the Romanian and Swiss experts (p < 0.001), Swiss experts having Table 3
Perception of landscape concept by Swiss and Romanian EIA experts (Switzerland,
a greater knowledge of indicators of visual perception, natural-
N = 60, Romania, N = 64).
ness, biological territorial capacity and landscape fragmentation.
The knowledge of Swiss experts is related with the level of educa- Questions Yes% Switzerland Yes% Romania
tion and years of experience in the field. Responses of the Romanian Landscape refers to the biotic elements 70.0 87.5
experts are more associated with the ELC content’s familiarity. Axis Landscape refers to the cultural 80.0 75.0
2 (p < 0.001) reflects a gradient related to the indicator of human elements
Landscape refers to the urban elements 58.3 59.3
pressure and is strongly related with GIS use, level of education
Landscape assessment should be a 83.3 54.6
and years of experience in the field. distinct chapter in EIA
The second CCA model reflects the pattern of the experts’ EIA should include landscape 100 100
responses disregarding their nationality (Fig. 2). This model, assessment
EB should include landscape 45.0 53.1
with axis 1 statistically significant (p < 0.001), explains 8.4% from
assessment
variation in data and 82.43% from constrained variation. The con- SEA should include landscape 73.3 75.0
straining variables that contribute significantly to the choice of assessment
answers are years of experience (p = 0.016) and level of education Landscape assessment – important 95.0 85.9
(p = 0.049), if the respondent is biologist or not (p = 0.02) and activity chapter
Higher and Equal Importance given to 81.6 62.5
in Environmental Assessment Agencies (p < 0.001) or other pri-
Landscape compared to Air
vate assessment companies (p = 0.028). These variables contribute Assessment
strongly to the gradient along axis 1 where response variables such Higher and Equal Importance given to 81.6 68.7
as knowledge of indicators of visual perception, naturalness, bio- Landscape compared to Biodiversity
Assessment
logical territorial capacity, landscape fragmentation and human
Higher and Equal Importance given to 70.0 60.9
pressure are significant, thus being associated with the above men- Landscape compared to Human
tioned explanatory variables. Health Risk
Higher and Equal Importance given to 85.0 64.0
Landscape compared to Soil
Landscape evaluation rank in EIA Assessment
EIA experts assume that landscape concepts refer mainly to the Higher and Equal Importance given to 80.0 59.3
biotic and cultural characteristics (Table 3). Swiss experts identified Landscape compared to Water
Assessment
cultural items as being the most significant (80% of respondents), Mathematical analysis should be 38.3 34.3
while Romanian respondents considered the biotic characteristics included in landscape assessment
an important part of the landscape (87.5% of the respondents). The Visual analysis should be included in 86.6 68.7
experts from both countries identified urban characteristics of a landscape assessment
Knowledge of Indicator of Biological 28.3 9.3
lesser importance when comparing with the biotic and cultural
Territorial Capacity
elements. Knowledge of Indicator of Human 38.3 37.5
The European Landscape Convention is acknowledged by 28% Pressure indicators
of the Swiss respondents and by 86% of the Romanian EIA experts. Knowledge of Indicator of Naturalness 56.6 20.3
However, despite the high level of awareness among Romanians, (Forest)
Knowledge of Landscape 65.0 39.0
few links to ELC content or objectives were discovered in EIA stud- Fragmentation
ies, and ∼27% of the Romanian experts who studied or developed Knowledge of Visual Perceptual 86.6 7.81
EIAs have encountered references to ELC. A similar situation is Indicators
acknowledged by Swiss experts, where ∼23% have seen references Familiarity with ELC content 28.3 85.9
Other international landscape 41.6 46.8
to ELC. Regarding to knowledge of national and subnational laws
protecting laws
and international treaties that have as a theme landscape analysis Reference of ELC in EIA studies 23.3 26.5
and protection, less than half of the respondents from either coun-
try were able to name other legislative norms (i.e. Swiss – 42%,
respectively Romania – 47%). often used to identify physical sites, historical or protected areas
Concerning the importance that should be given to landscape and land feature designations.
analysis in an environmental impact study when compared with Although we identified landscape related language in Romanian
impact assessments of air, water, soil, biodiversity and human EIA reports, most studies (80%) do not express concepts of ELC. In
health, experts from both countries favour equal or higher impor- examined Swiss reports only 25% of them provide a partial insight
tance. The support of the landscape analysis is greater among the
Swiss respondents.
Experts from both countries favour visual analysis as opposed to
mathematical models. When compared with Romanian EIA coun-
terparts, the Swiss experts appear to have superior knowledge of
landscape analysis indicators, especially on visual context (Table 3).

Understanding and usage of landscape concepts in EIA studies

The term “landscape” is quoted in all the 40 examined studies,

but in many Romanian EIA reports the term is used in a general
manner without revealing the complexity of the concept (Fig. 3).
Many case study reports use, as proxy for landscape, terms such
as: “environment”, “land use”, “cultural heritage”, “rural”, “urban”,
Fig. 3. Language Assessment in analysed EIA reports in Switzerland (CH) and Roma-
and “protected area”. As expected, the term “environment” is the nia (RO). Dark bars represent partial intent to landscape, grey bars represent holistic
most frequently used proxy. In the examined studies, landscape is intent (N = 20 in each country).
150 A. Niţă et al. / Land Use Policy 44 (2015) 145–152
Fig. 4. Summary of ELC intent assessment in Switzerland (dark bars) and Romania
(grey bars) (N = 20 EIA reports for each country).
into the complexity of the landscape concept usage, while in the
Romanian analysed case studies, only 4 provide a holistic depiction
of landscape (Fig. 3).
Half of the analysed Swiss EIA reports include objectives of pro-
tection and landscape management that are consistent with ELC
concepts. By contrast, in many Romanian EIA reports (i.e. 65%), the
intent of the ELC is not clearly indicated and the objectives are often
vaguely expressed (Fig. 4).
Discussion and conclusions
The concept of landscape is acknowledged, perceived and ana-
lysed differently by Swiss and Romanian experts. The European
Landscape Convention does not act as an integrative policy doc-
ument regarding landscape analysis and protection.
When referring to landscape, Romanian EIA experts consider
the biotic elements as the most important characteristics (i.e. 88%),
while cultural elements prevail in the Swiss EIA experts’ view (i.e.
80%). This dichotomy between the two groups of experts, illustrated
in the CCA plot (Fig. 1), highlights the complexity of landscape
concepts and the role of national background when shaping the
use of policies’ terms. In Romania, the term landscape has been
used principally in physical geography studies and only recently in
social–ecological context (e.g. Pătru-Stupariu, 2011; Fischer et al.,
2014). Conversely, Swiss researchers were more aligned with the
holistic understanding of landscape (e.g. Schmid, 2001; Buchecker
et al., 2003; Soliva et al., 2008). The latter approach is better inte-
grated with ELC’s intent, for the reason that each landscape is not
only defined by natural processes but also by a particular identity
of human perception, culture and history (Vos and Meekes, 1999).
Swiss and Romanian EIA experts consider that landscape impact
evaluation should be mandatory in EIA procedures, disregarding
the nature of the project. This is a key finding, suggesting that
landscape is perceived by EIA experts as a basic component of an
environmental system, having equal value with components such
air, water, and biodiversity. In contrast with the wider recognition
than landscape is part of an environmental system, the major-
ity of EIA experts that responded to our survey were unaware of
the commonly used landscape indicators. Many of them perceive
the landscape as a “picture” and not as a cross-sectoral system
which may be modelled and applied to environmental decision-
making processes (Antonson, 2011; Mikusiński et al., 2014). The
most recognized quantitative landscape indicators among Swiss
and Romanian experts, is landscape fragmentation indicator, which
according to Llausàs and Nogué (2012) fits within the ELC frame-
work. This indicator reveals changes of the landscape pattern and
might be meaningful to the experts and stakeholders involved
in the EIA process. The landscape fragmentation indicator may
be easily transferred to the concept of connectivity presented by
Mikusiński et al. (2014) as integrative for ecological, social, and
cultural extent of ELC. In Switzerland, several policies regarding
landscape fragmentation were identified (Jaeger et al., 2011). The
Swiss Federal Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape
(SAEFL) and the Swiss Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE)
emphasized the role of landscape fragmentation in shaping the
future of landscape. However, forming a coherent method or mech-
anism that may help monitor this effect on landscape is proving to
be a challenge (Jaeger et al., 2008).
Related to the appropriate indicators for an evaluation of
national, regional or local projects, many Swiss and Romanian
experts preferred visual perception methods to the detriment of
mathematical and statistical approaches. This finding is unexpected
because for many environmental scientists mathematical or sta-
tistical representations are easier to develop and subsequently to
interpret than the qualitative approaches. The latter approach is
not necessarily a drawback, and for often it suits ideally to the
social–ecological matrix of surrounding landscape and ELC’s aim
(Council of Europe, 2000). Furthermore, if the project’s impact on
landscape is assessed visually, then the relationships between the
land, the cultural heritage and landscape assets should be clearly
appraised in order to achieve a sustainable development based on
ecological, cultural, social and economic characteristics (Luyet et al.,
2012; Landscape Institute I.E.M.A., 2013).
By using the Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) we suc-
cessfully explored Swiss and Romanian EIA experts’ perception
regarding landscape integration in EIA procedures. Beyond the pat-
tern due to the cultural and social differences between countries,
an extended experience in the field and a higher level of educa-
tion indicates higher awareness of landscape characteristics and
properties. This highlights again the role of scientific and educa-
tional systems in landscape policy implementation, and suggests
that alongside with the initial training, there is a need for develop-
ing a coherent long-life learning systems having landscape analysis
as a principal focus. Technical publications developed by experts
from different countries, under the European Landscape Conven-
tion umbrella, may help to domain’s cohesiveness.
Despite the fact that Romanian experts’ answers are more cor-
related with the knowledge of ELC’s content and that they consider
landscape as an important chapter of EIA, the aim of ELC is rarely
captured by Romanian EIA reports. Meanwhile, even if the Swiss
experts’ answers are not related to the knowledge of the ELC con-
tent or other international landscape protecting laws, in the Swiss
EIA reports, landscape protection objectives are well represented.
The landscape protection is well legally framed in Switzerland, but
it is not yet clear for the experts what to evaluate and how in order
to comply with ELC’s objectives. This is an unresolved shortcom-
ing of ELC (Antrop, 2005). Although there are notable differences
between Romania and Switzerland from cultural, economic, his-
torical, and regional standpoints (Tudor et al., 2014), we were
expecting the same pro-environmentalist attitude from EIA experts
when they analyse the impact on landscape. If in EIA reports the ELC
intent cannot even be identified and expressed as largely or partially
– then the reports need to further implement ELC’s objectives and
mission in order to achieve appropriate landscape planning and
protection.
Our comparison of Swiss and Romanian landscape perception
and EIA reports identified considerable disparities between the
two countries relative to landscape impact evaluations, which can
then be addressed by policy makers. Although Switzerland has just
begun to implement the Landscape Convention, their landscape
analysis process is much more in line with ELC mission and prin-
ciples, while in Romania landscape analysis in EIA studies is rarely
well performed, and the potential effects of a project on landscape
remain uncertain.
 A. Niţă et al. / Land Use Policy 44 (2015) 145–152
ELC’s objectives should be closely reflected in the content of the
EIA reports, mainly in the sections devoted to landscape impact
analysis. Landscape analysis should be done during the project
approval stage and follow-up phases. Furthermore, landscape con-
siderations need to be explicitly and effectively integrated into land
use planning and policy-making (Scott, 2011).
The authorities, developers, and stakeholders must be willing to
work together in order to achieve proper conclusions for the future
of a sustainable landscape (Henningsson et al., 2014). Thus, EIA pro-
cess should be more cross-sectoral, participative, transparent, and
based on a proactive approach (Bassi et al., 2012).
Examinations of case studies from Switzerland and notably
Romania highlight the need for a better educational system
regarding landscape concepts, targeting both EIA experts and
stakeholders. A properly designed and long-term educational pro-
gramme has the potential to change the perception of landscape
and to enhance the ability to evaluate landscape in a holistic man-
ner. According to Bauer et al. (2009), the Swiss cantons manage the
landscape development in an abstract way. This is also the case in
Romania. However, there are substantial differences between the
two countries, clearly observed in the EIA reports, which implies
that, even though the EIA policy is uniform in developed and emerg-
ing economies, countries with a similar profile to Romania must
make commitments to promote sustainable landscape develop-
ment. Cross-countries cooperation may close the gap between the
different ELC countries, and provide a solid setting for developing
future guidelines on landscape evaluation and protection.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful
suggestions and comments on the manuscript. The research was
carried out as part of the Scientific Exchange Programme SciEx Pro-
gramme NMS-CH, 12.139–Sciex-N-6 and was partially supported
by the Swiss Enlargement Contribution in the framework of the
Romanian-Swiss Research Programme, project WindLand, project
code: IZERZO 142168/1 and 22 RO-CH/RSRP.
References
Antonson, H., 2009. Bridging the gap between research and planning practice con-
cerning landscape in Swedish infrastructural planning. Land Use Policy 26,
169–177.
Antonson, H., 2011. The treatment of landscape in a Swedish EIA process. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 31, 195–205.
Antrop, M., 2005. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 70, 21–34.
Bassi, A., Howard, R., Geneletti, D., Ferrari, S., 2012. UK and Italian EIA systems: a com-
parative study on management practice and performance in the construction
industry. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 34, 1–11.
Bauer, N., Wallner, A., Hunziker, M., 2009. The change of European landscapes:
human-nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the impli-
cations for landscape management in Switzerland. J. Environ. Manag. 90,
2910–2920.
Borcard, D., Gillet, F., Legendre, P., 2011. Numerical Ecology with R. Springer, New
York, pp. 306.
Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M., Kienast, F., 2003. Participatory landscape development:
overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landsc. Urban Plan. 64, 29–46.
Byron, H.J., Treweek, J.R., Sheate, W.R., Thompson, S., 2000. Road developments in the
UK: an analysis of ecological assessment in environmental impact statements
produced between 1993 and 1997. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 43, 71–97.
Council of Europe, 2008. Guidelines for the Implementation of the European
Landscape Convention, Available at: http://wcd.coe.int//ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/
Rec(2008)3&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=9999CC&
BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75 (accessed 25.06.13).
Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention, ETS 176. http://
conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=176&CM=8&
CL=ENG (accessed 26.08.13.).
Conrad, E., Christie, M., Fazey, I., 2012. Is research keeping up with changes in land-
scape policy? A review of the literature. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 2097–2108.
De Montis, A., 2014. Impacts of the European Landscape Convention on national
planning systems: a comparative investigation of six case studies. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 124, 53–65.
151
Depoorter, F.M., 2013. Synthesis of the Received Information Concerning Summary
Descriptive Note on the Landscape Policies Pursued in the Council of Europe
Member State (T-FLOR 2 (2002) 11 of 15 May 2003). Document du Secrétariat
Général, Division de l’aménagement du territoire et du paysage.
Dutu, M., Nistor, M., Manoleli, D., Sirbu, C., 2003. The Situation in Romania regarding
Legislation on Environmental Impact Assessment. Nomos y Physis, Athens,
Greece, Digital Publication, available at: www.nomosphysis.org.gr
Fischer, J., Sherren, K., Hanspach, J., 2014. Place, case and process: applying ecology
to sustainable development. Basic Appl. Ecol. 15, 187–193.
Forman, R.T., 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions.
Cambridge University Press, pp. 652.
Glasson, J., Bellanger, C., 2003. Divergent practice in a converging system? The case
of EIA in France and the UK. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 23, 605–624.
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., Chadwick, A., 2012. Introduction to Environmental Impact
Assessment, 4th ed. Routledge, pp. 416.
Greenacre, M., 2010a. Canonical correspondence analysis in social science research.
In: Locarek-Junge, H., Weihs, C. (Eds.), Classification as a Tool for Research.
Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 279–286.
Greenacre, M., 2010b. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. CRC Press, pp. 280.
Henningsson, M., Blicharska, M., Antonson, H., Mikusinski, G., Goransson, G., Angel-
stam, P., Folkeson, L., Jonsson, S., 2014. Perceived landscape values and public
participation in a road-planning process – a case study in Sweden. J. Environ.
Plan. Manag., doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.876391.
Hersperger, M.A., Bürgi, M., 2010. How do policies shape landscapes? Landscape
change and its political driving forces in the Limmat Valley, Switzerland
1930–2000. Landsc. Res. 35, 259–279.
Huzui, A.E., Călin, I., Pătru-Stupariu, I., 2012. Spatial pattern analyses of landscape
using multi-temporal data sources. Proc. Environ. Sci. 14, 98–110.
Jaeger, J.A.G., Madrinan, L.F., Soukup, T., Schwick, C., Kienast, F., 2011. Land-
scape Fragmentation in Europe. EEA Report 2/2011. European Environmental
Agency.
Jaeger, J.A.G., Bertiller, R., Schwick, C., Müller, K., Steinmeier, C., Ewald, K.C., Ghazoul,
J., 2008. Implementing landscape fragmentation as an indicator in the Swiss
monitoring system of sustainable development (Monet). J. Environ. Manag. 88,
737–751.
Kværner, J., Swensen, G., Erikstad, L., 2006. Assessing environmental vulnerability
in EIA – the content and context of the vulnerability concept in an alter-
native approach to standard EIA procedure. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26,
511–527.
Landscape Institute I.E.M.A., 2013. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment. Routledge, pp. 170.
Lindblom, I., 2012. Quality of Cultural Heritage in EIA; twenty years of experience
in Norway. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 34, 51–57.
Luyet, V., Schlaepfer, R., Parlange, M.B., Buttler, A., 2012. A framework to imple-
ment Stakeholder participation in environmental projects. J. Environ. Manag.
111, 213–219.
Llausàs, A., Nogué, J., 2012. Indicators of landscape fragmentation: the case for
combining ecological indices and the perceptive approach. Ecol. Indic. 15,
85–91.
Mikusiński, G., Blicharska, M., Antonson, H., Henningsson, M., Göransson, G., Angel-
stam, P., Seiler, A., 2014. Integrating ecological, social and cultural dimensions
in the implementation of the Landscape Convention. Landsc. Res. 38, 384–393.
Ministry of Development – Public Works and Housing, 2008. Identification and
Assessment Methodology of Landscape. Pilot Study: Built and Natural Protected
Area of National Interest Bordusani. http://www.eukn.org
Nistor, M., Manoleli, D., Sirbu, C., Dutu, M., 2003. Romanian Experience in the Field of
EIA Application and Cooperation – Case Studies. Nomos y Physis, Athens, Greece,
Digital Publication, available at: www.nomosphysis.org.gr
Office fédéral de l’environnement OFEV, 2009. Manuel EIE. Directive de la Con-
fédération sur l’étude de l’impact sur l’environnement (art. 10b, al. 2, LPE et
art. 10, al. 1, OEIE). Bern. http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/
01067/index.html?lang=fr.
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P.R., O’Hara, R.B., Simpson,
G.L., Sólymos, P., Stevens, M.H.H., Wagner, H., 2013. Vegan: Community Ecology
Package. R Package Version 2. 0-10. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
Palmer, M.W., 1993. Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical
correspondence analysis. Ecology 74, 2215–2230.
Pătru-Stupariu, I., 2011. Landscape and sustainable territorial management. In:
Applications to the Passageway Bran – Rucăr Corridor. Univ. Bucureşti,
Bucharest, pp. 214.
Pătru-Stupariu, I., Angelstam, P., Elbakidze, M., Huzui, A., Andersson, K., 2013. Using
spatial patterns and forest history to identify potential high conservation value
forests in Romania. Biodivers. Conserv. 22, 2023–2039.
Pedroli, G.B.M., Van Elsen, T., Van Mansvelt, J.D., 2007. Values of rural landscapes in
Europe: inspiration or by-product? NJAS – Wageningen J. Life Sci. 54, 431–447.
Perkins, R., Neumayer, E., 2007. Implementing multilateral environmental agree-
ments: an analysis of EU directives. Global Environ. Polit. 7, 13–41.
Peterlin, M., Kross, B.C., Kontic, B., 2008. A method for the assessment of changes in
environmental perception during an EIA process. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
28, 533–545.
Quétier, F., Rivoal, F., Marty, P., de Chazal, J., Thuiller, W., 2010. Social representa-
tions of an alpine grassland landscape and socio-political discourses on rural
development. Reg. Environ. Change 10, 119–130.
R Core Team, 2013. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria http://www.R-project.
org/
152 A. Niţă et al. / Land Use Policy 44 (2015) 145–152
Roe, M., Jones, C., Mell, I.C., 2008. Research to Support the Implementation of
the European Landscape Convention in England (No. PYT02/10/1.16). Research
Report for Natural England.
Roe, M., 2013. Policy change and ELC implementation: establishment of a baseline
for understanding the impact on UK national policy of the european landscape
convention. Landsc. Res. 38, 768–798.
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M.,
Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, M., Garcia, C., van Oosten, C., Buck, L.E., 2013. Ten
principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and
other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 8349.
Schmid, W.A., 2001. The emerging role of visual resource assessment and visualisa-
tion in landscape planning in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54, 213–221.
Scott, A., 2011. Beyond the conventional: meeting the challenges of landscape gov-
ernance within the European Landscape Convention? J. Environ. Manag. 92,
2754–2762.
Soliva, R., Rønningen, K., Bella, I., Bezak, P., Cooper, T., Flø, B.E., Marty, P., Potter,
C., 2008. Envisioning upland futures: Stakeholder responses to scenarios for
Europe’s mountain landscapes. J. Rural Stud. 24, 56–71.
Stoiculescu, R.C., Huzui, A.E., Gavrilidis, A., Nită, A., Pătru-Stupariu, I., Călin, I., Cuciu-
´
lan, A., 2014. What is the spatial link between the Roman civilisation and cultural
landscape in Romania? J. Maps 10 (2), 297–307.
Tobias, S., Müller-Wahl, P., 2013. Can place branding support landscape conser-
vation in city-regions? A case study from Switzerland. Land Use Policy 30,
266–275.
Tudor, C.A., Iojă, I.C., Pǎtru-Stupariu, I., Nită, M.R., Hersperger, A.M., 2014. How
successful is the resolution of land-use conflicts? A comparison of cases from
Switzerland and Romania. Appl. Geogr. 47, 125–136.
Vos, W., Meekes, H., 1999. Trends in European cultural landscape development:
perspectives for a sustainable future. Landsc. Urban Plan. 46, 3–14.
Waltert, F., Schulz, T., Schläpfer, F., 2011. The role of landscape amenities in regional
development: evidence from Swiss municipality data. Land Use Policy 28,
748–761.
Wood, G., 2008. Thresholds and criteria for evaluating and communicating impact
significance in environmental statements: ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no
evil’. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28, 22–38.