Klein Wsu 0251E 10729

QUANTIFYING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ECOLOGY AND AESTHETICS
IN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES
By
LINDA RUTH KLEIN
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

School of the Environment
MAY 2013
To the Faculty of Washington State University:
The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of LINDA RUTH
KLEIN find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.
___________________________________
William G. Hendrix, Ph.D., Chair
___________________________________
Jolie B. Kaytes, MLA
____________________________________
Virginia I. Lohr, Ph.D.
___________________________________
Rodney D. Sayler, Ph.D.
___________________________________
Mark E. Swanson, Ph.D.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Much appreciation is given foremost to my committee members, Bill Hendrix, Jolie
Kaytes, Virginia Lohr, Rod Sayler, and Mark Swanson for their guidance, encouragement, and
consistently congenial group dynamics. To my Chair, Bill Hendrix, I extend a very special and
heartfelt thank you for your friendship and exemplary patience, calmness, and listening skills
during our numerous meetings. The success of my research is due in large part to a committee
who allowed me enough space and time to develop a unique path, but responded decisively at
critical junctures. Thank you so much.
Because my research project was interdisciplinary in nature, questions were answered
and advice was given from far too many wonderful people to list individually and without fear of
inadvertently forgetting someone. However, part of my project's success hinged on learning the
sophisticated GeoWEPP model. In this regard, I must recognize Martin Minkowski, Ph.D.,
(ESRI, Redlands, CA) and William J. Elliot, Ph.D., and Ina Sue Miller (both from Moscow
Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA-USFS, Moscow, ID)
for their expert assistance and patience in answering my questions. Additionally, the staff from
WSU's Social and Economic Sciences Research Center was particularly influential in the
development and implementation of the landscape preference survey. And, I must acknowledge
my dear friends—Dianne, Beth, Marty, and Sharon—who spent many hours stamping and
stuffing envelopes with me. Your help, kindness, and emotional support mean more than words
can express.
I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to the anonymous Whitman County
residents who took time out of their busy lives to complete the survey questionnaire. Without
iii
their participation and the passion they feel for their landscapes, this research would neither have
been possible nor as rewarding. And, finally . . .
For all the human connections, the words of encouragement and criticism, the paths traveled and
untraveled, the accomplishments and disappointments,
and the landscape experiences that, together,
have guided me to this moment in my life,
I am forever grateful.
iv
QUANTIFYING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ECOLOGYAND AESTHETICS
IN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Abstract
by Linda Ruth Klein, Ph.D.

Washington State University
May 2013
Chair: William G. Hendrix
Biodiversity decline and ecological degradation continue unabated despite accumulation
of ecological knowledge, proliferation of sustainability research, and efforts to conserve natural
resources. This paradox underscores the failure of scientific research to communicate its social
relevance, acceptability, and applicability or to connect with what humans find ecologically
understandable or worthy of care. Acceptable and applicable approaches to nurture long-term,
mutually beneficial nature-culture relationships must be conceived within the scale of human
perception and linked to experiences that attract our concern. Through established theory and
supporting empirical evidence, this research explores and quantifies the potential and limitations
for enlisting the human aesthetic connection to landscapes as a mechanism for behavioral
change.
The cultural, ecological, and biophysical attributes of agricultural landscapes provide a
compatible and influential context for examining relationships between ecology and aesthetics.
However, the emotional power of aesthetic experiences to motivate conservation behavior in
v
agricultural settings will likely depend on the coincidence of ecological function and aesthetic
appeal in visual landscape structure. Parallel concerns, intentions, and spatial scale between the
disciplines of landscape ecology and landscape architecture expose a potentially synergistic
collaboration for investigating landscape structural alternatives that harmonize ecology and
aesthetics. The empirical research undertaken herein combines current spatial analysis, design,
and modeling tools; digital image simulation; and a landscape preference survey to ask, Can
ecological function and aesthetic quality coincide in visible landscape structure?
Using geographic information system analysis and digital image simulation software,
varying extents and configurations of natural vegetation are integrated into the small-grain
farming landscape of Whitman County, Washington. The capacity of these landscape-scale
buffer systems to enhance ecological function by reducing soil erosion rates and improving
water quality is measured with the Water Erosion Prediction Project model. The influence of the
alternative landscape scenarios on aesthetic preference is measured by residents' scenic quality
ratings of the simulated scenes presented in a mail survey questionnaire. Results reveal a
statistically significant, positive relationship between landscape preference and landscape
structure indicative of improved ecological function. Thus, the visually perceptible structural
attributes of agricultural landscapes can provide an accurate and coincident indication of both
ecological function and aesthetic quality.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... x
LISTOF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
2. THEORY AND CONCEPTS IN LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS AND THE
POTENTIAL FOR AN ECOLOGICAL AESTHETIC .............................................. 12
Searching for a Unified Theory .......................................................................... 12
Aesthetic Philosophy and Landscape Aesthetic Experience .............................. 13
Environmental Psychology and Landscape Preference ...................................... 16
The Concept of an Ecological Aesthetic ............................................................. 19
Not so Fast . . . In the Defense of Scenic Beauty ................................................ 22
References ........................................................................................................... 26
3. WITHIN VIEW: ECOLOGY, EXPERIENCE, AND APPEARANCE OF
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES ............................................... 30
Abstract ............................................................................................................... 31
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 32
Ecosystem Services and Agricultural Sustainability .......................................... 35
Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs ....................................................................... 35
Counterbalancing System-Degrading Processes at the Landscape-Scale .... 37
vii
Cultural Dimensions of Agricultural Sustainability ........................................... 38
Aesthetic Experience of the Pastoral Landscape .......................................... 39
Visual Attributes and Cultural Significance of the Pastoral Aesthetic ......... 40
A Potential Catalyst for Sustainable Land-Use Behavior ................................... 41
Performance of Appearance and Emergent Landscape Properties ............... 42
Fusing Ecology and Aesthetics via Landscape Ecology-Landscape
Architecture Collaborations .................................................................... 43
Designing Buffers to Sustain Agricultural Landscapes ...................................... 44
Disproportionality, Ecological Targeting, and Sense of Place in Buffer
Design ........................................................................................................... 45
Buffer Qualities that Transcend Boundaries of Place ................................... 46
Coincident Ecological and Aesthetic Values in Visually Perceptible
Landscape Structure ................................................................................ 47
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 49
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................. 50
References ........................................................................................................... 51
4. LINKING ECOLOGY AND AESTHETICS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES: A
CASE STUDY FROM THE PALOUSE REGION OF WASHINGTON STATE,
U.S.A ........................................................................................................................... 70
Abstract .............................................................................................................. 71
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 72
Methods .............................................................................................................. 77
Results and Discussion ....................................................................................... 87
viii
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 95
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................. 96
References ........................................................................................................... 98
5. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 123
APPENDIX
A. DETAILED RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................. 132
B. SURVEY DESIGN, SAMPLING, AND IMPLEMENTATATION PROTOCOL ... 144
C. MAIL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................... 159
D. DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICAL
ANALYSES .............................................................................................................. 172
E. EROSION MODELING RESULTS FOR STUDY SITES A-C ............................... 182
F. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION ................. 186
ix
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION
Table 1. Ecological functions and ecosystem services associated with the installation of
permanent conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes .......................................................... 6
WITHIN VIEW: ECOLOGY, EXPERIENCE, AND APPEARANCE OF SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Table 1. Cultural significance of landscape attributes relative to aesthetic preference, supporting
theory/literature, and potential for attributes to be perceived in existing modern agricultural
landscapes compared to alternatives designed as more sustainable mosaics inclusive of
conservation buffers systems ............................................................................................. 59
LINKING ECOLOGY AND AESTHETICS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES: A CASE
STUDY FROM THE PALOUSE REGION OF WASHINGTON STATE, U.S.A.
Table 1. Comparison of physical characteristics among study sites ........................................ 106
Table 2. Land uses developed in ArcGIS to represent the four increasing levels of ecological
function and expected changes composition and spatial configuration of visible landscape
structural attributes ........................................................................................................... 107
Table 3. GeoWEPP modeling details, including inputs and parameters specific to each site and
parameters held constant across sites ............................................................................... 108
Table 4. Changes in percentage of watershed area in each of 10 soil deposition/erosion rate
classes for the four GeoWEPP modeling runs by study site ............................................ 110
Table 5. Response distributions to survey questions asking about experience or familiarity with
the Whitman County landscapes ...................................................................................... 112
x
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1. Vegetation buffer structure and function within an agricultural landscape ................. 6
Figure 1. Perceived tradeoffs (A) or complete incompatibility (B) between aesthetic appeal and
ecological function in visible landscape structure; (C) supports the normative ecological
aesthetic concept and the foundation of ecological design .............................................. 66
Figure 2. Artistic portrayals of rural landscape scenes that perpetuate cultural meanings and
visual expectations embedded within our pastoral aesthetic ............................................ 67
Figure 3. Possibilities for ecological function and aesthetic appeal to coincide in the appearance
of sustainable agricultural landscapes .............................................................................. 68
Figure 4. Conceptualization of an intensively managed, small-grain agricultural landscape
before (A) and after configuring conservation buffers to simultaneously enhance
ecological function and aesthetic experience (B, C) ........................................................ 69
LINKING ECOLOGY AND AESTHETICS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES: A CASE
STUDY FROM THE PALOUSE REGION OF WASHINGTON STATE, U.S.A.
Figure 1. Extent of the 46,879 km2 (18,100 mi2) Palouse Ecoregion, with Whitman County
boundaries outlined in the central core ........................................................................... 115
Figure 2. Photographic example of the Palouse small-grain farming landscape in Whitman
County, WA .................................................................................................................... 116
Figure 3. Study sites (A-D) along the Palouse Scenic Byway of Whitman County, WA ....... 117
xi
Figure 4. GIS map of Study Site B, illustrating viewshed area, watershed boundaries, drainage
flowpaths, and valley stream .......................................................................................... 118
Figure 5. Final digital image simulations for two of the four study sites (A & D), illustrating the
four sequential landscape buffer scenarios that represent increasing levels of ecological
function ........................................................................................................................... 119
Figure 6. Example of land-use and associated soil erosion maps for Study Site D resulting from
50-year simulations in GeoWEPP .................................................................................. 120
Figure 7. Mosaic plot and associated contingency table of scenic quality by landscape
scenario ........................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 8. Box-and-whisker plots of all scenic quality ratings for each landscape buffer
scenario ........................................................................................................................... 122
xii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Ruth, to my sister, Laurel, and in loving memory to
my father, Jack, for their unconditional love that has been an anchor throughout my life;
and to my husband, John, who never doubted
— even in my moments of greatest uncertainty —
that I could achieve this goal.
xiii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity decline and ecological degradation continue unabated despite the
accumulation of ecological knowledge and the recent explosion of sustainability research and
literature (MA 2005; Groffman et al. 2007; Rands et al. 2010). This paradox underscores a
chronic disconnect between the ecological relevance of scientific research and its social
relevance, acceptability, and applicability (Linehan and Gross 1998; Stevens et al. 2007). Neither
increases in knowledge nor external rationalizations, however well-intentioned or justified by
scientific or moral theories, are sufficient in isolation to change human attitudes or behaviors.
Our internal needs, desires, habits, and values will resist change when the normative principles
being proposed fail to connect with what we find ecologically understandable or worthy of care
(Welchman 1999; Robertson and Hull 2001; Hill and Daniel 2008).
Human-Nature Relationships in Cultural Landscapes
Ecologists and conservation biologists have traditionally focused research on pristine
ecosystems and emphasized protection of large pristine reserves (Cronon 1996; Makhzoumi and
Pungetti 1999; Orr 2002). This focus has resulted in an idealized view of distant wildlands to the
neglect of the much larger, and increasing, proportion of Earth’s land surface occupied by people
(Cronon 1996; Orr 2002). Moreover, this idealization perpetuates a philosophy of disconnecting
humans from nature and downplays the inseparable relationships between nature and culture
(Miller and Hobbs 2002; Orr 2002). The value of increasing our understanding of ecological
processes in unspoiled nature and preserving wilderness areas and national parks is unequivocal.
Yet, these efforts will be insufficient to conserve biodiversity, reverse ecological degradation, or
1
provide ecosystem services as the human population continues to enlarge its footprint on Earth
(Pimentel et al. 1992; Daily 2001; Lugo et al. 2001; Western 2001; Tscharntke et al. 2005;
Bennett et al. 2006).
By recognizing humans as part of nature—with habitat requirements for their own well-
being and survival as other species—we must also acknowledge the importance of conserving
and creating landscapes in harmony with nature “to fit the physiological, aesthetic, and
emotional needs of modern human life” (Dubos 1976). In contrast to natural landscapes, cultural
landscapes are regions of Earth that have developed under the dual influence of natural processes
and human activities (Appleton 1996; Taylor 2002; SER 2004). Unlike natural landscapes that
are essentially self-maintaining, harmonious cultural landscapes will depend, to a large degree,
on human effort and care (Dubos 1976; Nassauer 1997; Décamps 2001; SER 2004).
Consequently, understanding how human perceptions, experiences, and values interact with
ecological function in cultural landscapes is crucial if we wish to nurture and motivate socially
and ecologically responsible land-use relationships (Zube 1987; Nassauer 1997; Fry and Sarlöv-
Herlin 1997; Linehan and Gross 1998; Décamps 2001; Bürgi et al. 2004; Tress et al. 2005;
Potschin and Haines-Young 2006; Gobster et al. 2007).
Any practical attempt to harmonize nature and culture in the landscape must first
consider what fundamentally motivates human behavior (Tuan 1974; Parsons and Daniel 2002;
Taylor 2002). Several researchers (e.g., Nassauer 1992, 1997; Appleton 1996; Mozingo 1997;
Parsons and Daniel 2002; Gobster et al. 2007) assert that understanding the deep-rooted
relationships between humans and their landscapes can become a strategic pathway for
communicating ecological function and a catalyst for affecting behavioral change. We are unique
among animals in the way we consciously create, alter, and appreciate landscapes. We structure
2
landscapes not only for the production of goods and services but frequently for the sole purpose
of receiving aesthetic pleasure (Fairbrother 1974; Nassauer 1997; Bell 2004). From preserving
distant wildlands to admiring landscape painting to creating city parklands and planting flower
boxes, evidence abounds that we value and appreciate nature beyond economic utility. We will
travel long distances strictly for the pleasure of viewing beautiful scenery, sunsets and sunrises,
wildflowers, or autumn foliage (Laurie 1975; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Sutton 1999).
Moreover, the accessibility and experience of nature in nearby environments is an
important indicator of quality of life, emotional and physical well-being, and how satisfied
people are with where they live (Stokes et al. 1997; Kaplan et al. 1998). Reason guides us to
conclusions whereas emotion directs us to action (Calne 1999; Parsons and Daniel 2002; Lehrer
2009). Although people may be unmoved by scientific or moral appeals for natural resource
conservation, they often feel quite strongly about the care and protection of landscapes that
evoke sensuous and emotional pleasure (Tuan 1974; Stokes et al. 1997; Meyer 2008). If
landscapes that evoke aesthetic pleasure are more likely to be cared for and protected to sustain
these pleasurable feelings (Nassauer 1997; Gobster et al. 2007; Meyer 2008), the power of this
emotion may also motivate conservation and sustainable land-use behavior (Tuan 1974;
Nassauer 1992; Fry and Sarlöv-Herlin 1997; Meyer 2008).
Cultural and Ecological Functions of the Agricultural Landscapes
For several reasons, agricultural landscapes provide an exemplary context for
investigating connections between ecological function and aesthetic experience that might
encourage behavioral change and, in turn, more harmonious nature-culture relationships. First,
and notably, landscapes dominated by agricultural uses (grazing or cultivation) encompass
approximately 50 percent of Earth's habitable land (Donald and Evans 2006; Kareiva et al 2007).
3
Second, concerns about the negative ecological effects of more than 50 years of large-
scale, energy- and chemical-intensive agriculture and the long-term sustainability of these food
production systems are increasing and well-documented (e.g., see Tilman et al. 2002; Tscharntke
et al. 2005; Kareiva et al. 2007). Ironically, agricultural production is negatively affecting the
very ecosystem services – pollination, pest control, nutrient regulation, soil formation and
retention, and water quality and supply – upon which it depends (Pimentel et al. 1992; Daily
1997; MA 2005). Numerous researchers are calling for innovative approaches to advance the key
role agricultural landscapes can, and must, play in enhancing biodiversity and conserving these
ecosystem services (e.g., Pimentel et al. 1992; Tscharntke et al. 2005; Bennett et al. 2006;
Donald and Evans 2006; Groffman et al. 2007).
Third, for both rural and urban residents in many parts of the world, agricultural
landscapes provide everyday access to nature, recreation, scenic beauty, and open space (Dubos
1976; Stokes et al. 1997; Antrop 2000). The emotional allure of a beautiful landscape is often the
underlying motivation common to those working to protect farmland resources—more powerful
than the value placed on clean water, wildlife habitat, and prime agricultural soil (Stokes et al.
1997). Undeniably, and despite ongoing environmental concerns, humans have a longstanding
love affair with the countryside, often expressed in romanticized writings and paintings of
pastoral landscapes. Particularly in North America, this pastoral aesthetic of agricultural
landscapes as perpetually green, peaceful, comforting, and productive is popular, powerful, and
persistent (Marx 1964; Schauman 2007). A farming way of life is esteemed as one of
stewardship, defined by a deep commitment of devoted attention to maintain productivity and
protect natural resources (Stokes et al. 1997; Nowak and Pierce 2007). Within this entrenched
4
hope for "seeing only the best" in the countryside (Schauman 2007) may exist a powerful
emotional force for linking ecological function and aesthetic appeal in agricultural landscapes.
Research Goal and Approach
The overarching goal of this research is to contribute to our understanding of agricultural
landscape sustainability, enlisting an interdisciplinary strategy to evaluate relationships among
landscape structure, ecosystem services, and cultural well-being. Theory and methods are
integrated from landscape ecology, aesthetic philosophy, environmental psychology, and
landscape design to explore relationships among visible structure, ecological function, and
aesthetic experience of agricultural landscapes. Various tools and methods, including geographic
information system (GIS) spatial analysis, soil erosion modeling, digital image simulation
software; and a mail survey are used to answer the following question: How does agricultural
landscape structure that is designed to improve ecological function influence aesthetic
experience, and in turn, landscape preference?
The underlying premise is that visually perceptible structural attributes can be
meaningfully quantified and are representative of ecological function and aesthetic preference in
agricultural landscapes. The central hypothesis is that intentionally configuring natural and
cropped vegetation within agricultural landscapes can result in coincident, visually perceptible
attributes indicative of both improved ecological function and aesthetic experience. The research
demonstrates a design strategy for establishing permanent vegetation buffers to reduce soil
erosion and improve water quality within the context of the Palouse farming landscapes of
Whitman County, Washington. The ecological function and societal benefits, termed ecosystem
services, of vegetation buffers within an agricultural context have been well-documented (Table
1; Figure 1).
5
Table 1. Ecological functions and ecosystem services associated with the installation of
permanent conservation buffers for water, air, and soil quality objectives in agricultural
landscapes (adapted from Daily 1997; de Groot et al. 2002; Bentrup 2008).
Conservation Objective Ecological Functions Ecosystem Services1
Water/Air Quality
Reduce runoff of sediment, Enhance infiltration and slow water Maintain cleaner water
fertilizer, and pesticides runoff
Trap and filter pollutants in surface Maintain purer air
Remove pollutants in surface runoff
water runoff, subsurface Trap and filter pollutants in
flow, and wind subsurface flow
Trap airborne pollutants
Reduce bank erosion and stabilize
soil
Soil Quality
Reduce soil erosion Reduce water runoff energy Maintain and enhance soil
Reduce wind energy productivity and fertility
Increase soil productivity Stabilize soil Retain and protect healthy
Build soil organic matter soils for future generations
Foster soil microorganisms Mitigate off-site damage from
Remove soil pollutants erosion, siltation, pollution
1
Other ecosystem services accrue concurrently, including those related to enhanced biodiversity (e.g., crop
pollination, pest control, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing); hydrologic/biogeochemical cycle regulation; and
aesthetic, educational, and spiritual amenities.
Figure 1. Examples of vegetation buffer structure and function within an agricultural landscape
(adapted from Bentrup 2008).
6
Following, are four chapters that include the foundational background literature; research
question development and justification; and methods, analyses, and results of the empirical
research project. Chapter Two summarizes the landscape aesthetic/perception literature with an
emphasis on theory and concepts that inform the practice of landscape design within the
discipline of landscape architecture. Chapter Three is a manuscript that has been formatted for,
and submitted to, Landscape Journal. Written as a conceptual and theoretical treatise, this
chapter establishes an argument for, and illustrates, several important relationships between
aesthetics and ecology in the visual attributes of agricultural landscapes. Also discussed, are the
potential synergistic landscape ecology-landscape architecture collaborations capable of creating
agricultural landscape alternatives with visual attributes coincident and indicative of enhanced
ecological function and aesthetic experience. Chapter Four has been formatted for, and will be
submitted to, Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment. This manuscript reports the empirical
research study design, methods, results and discussion. The overall conclusion is written as
Chapter Five. Several appendices follow that provide details about research methodology and
survey questionnaire design, additional erosion modeling results, and supplementary statistical
analyses beyond what was possible to include in Chapter Four.
7
References
Antrop, M. 2000. Background concepts for integrate landscape analysis. Agriculture,

Ecosystems, & Environment 77:17-28.
Appleton, J. 1996. The experience of landscape. 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons. West Sussex,
England.
Bell, S. 2004. Elements of visual design in the landscape. 2nd edition. Spon Press. London.
Bennett, A. F., J. Q. Radford, and A. Haslem. 2006. Properties of land mosaics: implications for
nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biological Conservation 133:250-264.
Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways.
Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southern Research Station.
Bürgi, M., A. M. Hersperger, and N. Schneeberger. 2004. Driving forces of landscape change –
current and new directions. Landscape Ecology 19:857-868.
Calne, D. B. 1999. Within reason: rationality and human behavior. Pantheon Books. New York.
Cronon, W. 1996. The trouble with wilderness, or, getting back to the wrong nature. Pages 69-90
in Uncommon ground: toward reinventing nature. W. Cronon, editor. W. W. Norton & Co.
New York.
Daily, G. C., editor. 1997. Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island
Press. Washington D.C.
Daily, G. C. 2001. Ecological forecasts. Nature 411:246.
Décamps, H. 2001. How a riparian landscape finds form and comes alive. Landscape and Urban
Planning 57:169-175.
de Groot, R. S., M. A. Wilson, and R. M. J. Boumans. 2002. A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics
41:393-408.
Donald, P. F. and A. D. Evans. 2006. Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider
implications of agri-environment schemes. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:209-218.
Dubos, R. J. 1976. Symbiosis between the Earth and humankind. Science 193:459-462.
Fairbrother, N. 1974. The nature of landscape design. Architectural Press. London.
8
Fry, G. and I. Sarlöv-Herlin. 1997. The ecological and amenity functions of woodland edges in
the agricultural landscape: a basis for design and management. Landscape and Urban
Planning 37:45-55.
Gobster, P. H., J. I. Nassauer, T. C. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. The shared landscape: what does
aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22:959-972.
Groffman, P., P. Capel, K. Riitters, and W. Yang. 2007. Ecosystem services in agricultural
landscapes. Pages 3-16 in Managing agricultural landscapes for environmental quality:
strengthening the science base. M. Schnepf and C. Cox, editors. Soil and Water Conservation
Society. Ankeny, IA.
Hill, D., and T. C. Daniel. 2008. Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: can information alter
landscape preferences? Society & Natural Resources 21:34-49.
Kaplan R. and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective

Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. L. Ryan. 1998. With people in mind: design and management of
everyday nature. Island Press. Washington, D. C.
Kareiva, P., S. Watts, R. McDonald, and T. Boucher. 2007. Domesticated nature: shaping
landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316:1866-1869.
Laurie, I. C. 1975 Aesthetic factors in visual evaluation. Pages 102 - 117 in Landscape
assessment: values, perceptions, and resources. E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos,
editors. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. Stroudsburg, PA.
Lehrer J .2009. How we decide. Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, New York
Linehan, J. R., and M. Gross. 1998. Back to the future, back to basics: the social ecology of
landscapes and the future of landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 42:207-223.
Lugo, A. E., W. L. Silver, S. Brown, F. N. Scatena, and J. J. Ewel. 2001. Managed ecosystems
deserve greater attention. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 82(1):91-93.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Our human planet: summary for decision-
makers. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press. Washington D.C.
Makhzoumi, J. and G. Pungetti. 1999. Ecological landscape design and planning: the
Mediterranean context. E & FN Spon. London.
Marx L (1964) The machine in the garden: technology and the pastoral ideal in America. Oxford
University Press, New York.
9
Meyer, E. K. 2008. Sustaining beauty. The performance of appearance: a manifesto in three
parts. Journal of Landscape Architecture 1(Spring):6-23.
Miller, J.R., and R.J. Hobbs. 2002. Conservation where people live and work. Conservation
Biology 16(2):330-337.
Mozingo, L. A. 1997. The aesthetics of ecological design: seeing science as culture. Landscape
Journal 16(1):46-59.
Nassauer, J. I. 1992. The appearance of landscape as matter of policy. Landscape Ecology

6(4):239-250.
Nassauer, J. I. 1997. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. Pages 65-83 in
Placing nature: culture and landscape ecology. J. I. Nassauer, editor. Island Press.
Washington, D.C.
Nowak, P. and F. J. Pierce. 2007. The disproportionality conundrum. Pages 104-111 in

Managing agricultural landscapes for environmental quality: strengthening the science base.
M. Schnepf and C. Cox, editors. Soil and Water Conservation Society. Ankeny, IA.
Orr, D. 2002. The nature of design: ecology, culture, and human intention. Oxford University
Press. New York.
Parsons, R. and T. C. Daniel. 2002. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics.
Landscape and Urban Planning 60:43-56.
Pimentel, D., U. Stackow, D. A. Takacs, H. W. Brubaker, A. R. Dumas, J. J. Meaney, J. A. S.

O’Neil, D. E. Onsi, and D. B. Corzilius. 1992. Conserving biological diversity in
agricultural/forestry systems. Bioscience 42(5):354-362.
Potschin, M. B. and R. H. Haines-Young. 2006. Landscapes and sustainability. Landscape and

Urban Planning 75:155-161.
Rands M. R. W, W. M. Adams, L. Bennun et al. 2010. Biodiversity conservation: challenges

beyond 2010. Science 329:1298-1303
Robertson, D. P. and R. B. Hull. 2001. Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for
conservation. Conservation Biology 15(4):970-979.
Schauman, S. 2007. The garden and the red barn: The pervasive pastoral and its environmental
consequences. In The Aesthetics of Human Environments, ed. Arnold Berleant and Allen
Carlson, 219-233. Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press.
SER (Society for Ecological Restoration) International Science & Policy Working Group. 2004.
The SER International primer on ecological restoration. Available on-line: www.ser.org.
Society for Ecological Restoration International. Tucson, AZ.
10
Stevens, C. J., I. Fraser, J. Mitchley, and M. B. Thomas. 2007. Making ecological science policy-
relevant: issues of scale and disciplinary integration. Landscape Ecology 22:799-809.
Stokes, S. N., A. E. Watson, and S. S. Mastran 1997. Saving America’s countryside: a guide to
rural conservation. 2nd edition. For The National Trust for Historic Preservation. The Johns
Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD.
Sutton, R. K. 1999. Ethics and aesthetics in the loss of farmland. Pages 217-246 in Under the
Blade: the conversion of agricultural landscapes. R. H. Olson and T. A. Lyson, editors.
Westview Press. Boulder, CO.
Taylor, P. D. 2002. Fragmentation and cultural landscapes: tightening the relationship between
human beings and the environment. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:93-99.
Tilman, D., K. G. Cassman, P. A. Matson, R. Naylor, and S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural

sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671-677.
Tscharntke, T., A. M. Klein, A. Kruess, I. Steffan-Dewenter, and C. Thies. 2005. Landscape

perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service
management. Ecology Letters 8:857-874.
Tuan, Y. 1974. Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Prentice-
Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Welchman, J. 1999. The virtues of stewardship. Environmental Ethics 21:411-423.
Western, D. 2001. Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Science 98(10): 5458-5465.
Zube, E. H. 1987. Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landscape Ecology 1(1):37-
45.
11
CHAPTER TWO
THEORY AND CONCEPTS IN LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS AND THE POTENTIAL
FOR AN ECOLOGICAL AESTHETIC
To earnestly explore how the human aesthetic connection to landscape might catalyze
behavioral change, we must look beyond an initial impression that the emotion of pleasure is
frivolous, capricious, or superficial. Rather, we must consider seriously the underlying
mechanisms that contribute to the physiological expression of pleasure in response to landscape
stimuli (Parsons and Daniel 2002; Meyer 2008). In the words of Jay Appleton in his classic, The
Experience of Landscape (1975): “What is it that we like about landscape, and why do we like
it?”
Searching for a Unified Theory
Landscape aesthetics, the study of human appreciation of landscape, has been primarily
articulated within the disciplines of aesthetic philosophy and environmental psychology.
Whereas an extensive amount of research has been accomplished, a unified theoretical
framework has yet to be established for landscape aesthetics (Appleton 1975, 1996; Bourassa
1991; Thorne and Huang 1991; Bell 2004). Part of the difficulty stems from a dichotomy in the
lines of inquiry between those who study the topic from an artistic versus a scientific perspective.
Each perspective uses understandably different, but incompatible, methodologies. The result has
been fragmented explanations and, as yet, inadequate means to communicate, connect, or
integrate theory across the disciplines. Nonetheless, a complete view of landscape and human
experience of it requires the building of this bridge between art and science (Appleton 1975;
Bourassa 1991; Tress et al. 2001; Tress et al. 2005).
12
Another obstacle to establishing an overarching theory of landscape aesthetics is that the
human response to landscape is extraordinarily complex and difficult to quantify. Human
response to landscapes is influenced by a simultaneous and interacting combination of
biological, cultural, and personal modes of aesthetic experience. Because each mode interacts
with the others, attributing various aspects of aesthetic behavior unequivocally to biological,
cultural, or personal influences is tenuous (Appleton 1975; Laurie 1975; Bourassa 1991;
Nassauer 1995; Kaplan et al. 1998; Lothian 1999; Gobster et al. 2007).
Much of the established landscape aesthetic research directly informs and guides the
practice of design within the profession of landscape architecture. Landscape design is the
deliberate and creative spatial arrangement of natural and cultural elements to generate attractive
outdoor places for pleasurable human experiences (Dee 2001; Bell 2004). An extensive body of
research is associated with landscape aesthetics. Herein, I focus on the leading theories and
concepts frequently considered in the landscape design process, and thereby, also directly
pertinent to my doctoral research.
Aesthetic Philosophy and Landscape Aesthetic Experience
For more than two thousand years, philosophers have attempted to comprehend the
concept of aesthetics, that is, the notion of what is artistically valid or beautiful, whether in art or
nature (Appleton 1975; Lothian 1999; Bell 2004). The term beauty is popularly defined as “the
combination of qualities that make something pleasing and impressive to look at, listen to, touch,
smell, or taste” (http://encarta.msn.com). Nature is rarely considered in itself a work of art, yet
we recognize beauty in nature and value a beautiful landscape for the intuitive, sensuous, and/or
emotional pleasure it evokes (Laurie 1975). The interrelationships between art and nature are
complex, and consideration of aesthetic values in landscapes must be examined within their
13
cultural and historical contexts (Bourassa 1991). Whether the inherent order and unity of natural
landscapes have inspired our concepts of artistic beauty or whether an appreciation of art is a
prerequisite for appreciating landscape beauty is an ongoing philosophical debate (Laurie 1975;
Bourassa 1991; Bell 2004).
Early aesthetic philosophers were divided between objectivist and subjectivist paradigms
of landscape aesthetics. The objectivist paradigm views landscape beauty as an intrinsic physical
quality of the landscape itself. In contrast, the subjectivist paradigm views landscape beauty as
solely a construct of the human observer, epitomized in the oft quoted, “Beauty is in the eye of
the beholder” (Lothian 1999). Based primarily on the work of the 20th century philosophers
Dewey (1934) and later Berleant (1984, 1997), a practical and well-accepted resolution to this
controversy is the recognition that landscape beauty cannot be separated from, but exists within,
the relationship between the object and the subject.
Applied to landscape, aesthetics is an experience originating from the interaction between
the biophysical features of the landscape and human perception (process of using the senses to
acquire information about the surrounding environment or situation) and deduction (process of
deriving, through reason, a conclusion from available information). In other words, the aesthetic
experience is a reaction to the intrinsic qualities of the landscape (e.g., color, composition,
structure, pattern, sound, and smell) based on the participant’s ability to sense these qualities and
evaluate them using cognitive processes (Appleton 1975; Laurie 1975; Eaton 1989; Kaplan and
Kaplan 1989; Bourassa 1991; Mozingo 1997; Daniel 2001; Simonds and Starke 2006; Gobster et
al. 2007).
The landscape aesthetic experience is a complex process that involves the appreciation of
beauty beyond a one-dimensional interpretation of being visually scenic. A scenic aesthetic,
14
typically descriptive of the more detached, static observation of awe-inspiring natural
phenomena or 17th century picturesque landscape painting, only partly describes the pleasure
experienced in cultural landscapes (Gobster et al. 2007). The aesthetic experience that brings
pleasure to everyday life, in direct response to perceivable attributes in cultural landscapes, is
often simultaneously sensuously acute and emotionally complex (Laurie 1975; Kaplan et al.
1998; Gobster et al. 2007). Sensual appeal, often associated with scenic beauty, is primarily
visual but is also perceived through hearing, smell, touch, and taste when we actively engage in a
landscape (Laurie 1975; Thorne and Huang 1991; Linehan and Gross 1998; Bell 1999).
Emotional responses can arise from recognizing and appreciating a landscape’s uniqueness or
characteristics symbolic of its cultural and natural heritage and identity (Thorne and Huang
1991; Stokes et al. 1997).
Emotions may also be stirred by meanings reflected in a landscape’s character based on
the observer’s experiences, knowledge, and/or beliefs in societal norms (Laurie 1975; Thorne
and Huang 1991; Gobster et al. 2007). Nassauer’s (1997) aesthetic of care exemplifies a societal
norm, where lush, green, manicured lawns or weed-free, orderly fields are interpreted as signs of
personal pride, virtue, goodwill, attentiveness, and valued community contributions. An aesthetic
of attachment or love is experienced in landscapes we call “home”, where perceived
characteristics instill assurance and comfort and sense of place or belonging (Tuan 1974; Thorne
and Huang 1991; Gobster et al. 2007). Tuan (1974) terms this development of profound love and
attachment to our native places, topophilia. Additionally, an aesthetic response may be
associated with utilitarian values, that is, the recognition of existing or potential functions and
activities a landscape may offer (Laurie 1975; Bourassa 1991).
15
An individual’s ability to perceive, contemplate, and judge a landscape’s aesthetic quality
is dependent on personal attributes and the situational and landscape contexts of the experience.
Personal attributes are products of inherited traits, experience and education, ethics and values,
and socio-cultural norms. Thus, aesthetic experiences elicited by the same intrinsic landscape
characteristics may be felt in varying degrees of sensual and/or emotional pleasure, depending on
an individual’s physiological and psychological makeup. No two individuals will react
identically when experiencing the same landscape and one individual will experience the same
landscape differently a second time once influenced by the prior experience (Appleton 1975;
Laurie 1975; Tuan 1989; Lothian 1999; Wolfe et al. 2006). Situational context may include
whether the participant is alone or in a group and also the participant's mood, expectations,
activity pursued, or knowledge of and past experience in the landscape. Physical situational
conditions, such as weather, lighting, viewpoint, and distractions, will also influence the
experience. Landscape context may include land ownership, cultural setting, extent of view, and
composition and spatial relationships of landscape elements (Laurie 1975; Gobster et al. 2007).
Environmental Psychology and Landscape Preference
Environmental psychology's contribution to landscape aesthetic theory arises from
research on the relationship between humans and nature and on how highly related psychological
processes (perception, emotion, cognition, and evaluation) influence landscape preference
(Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Nassauer 1995; Bell 2004). Empirical research using perception-
based assessments generally interprets human preference for a particular landscape as a measure
of the landscape's aesthetic quality. Preferred landscapes are interpreted as having high visual
aesthetic quality (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Nassauer 1995; Daniel 2001). ). However, little
agreement exists on what specific types, or combinations, of sensory perceptions, cognitive
16
evaluations, and affective responses are important in determining landscape aesthetic quality
(Daniel 2001).
In addition to being influenced by cultural learning and individual traits and experience,
landscape perception and preference have also been theorized as partly innate, or biologically
based responses. These theories argue that human aesthetic behavior has a strong genetic
component that was likely originally selected to ensure evolutionary progress. For example,
Appleton’s (1975) habitat theory asserts that we experience pleasure, or aesthetic satisfaction,
when we perceive shapes, colors, spatial configurations, or other landscape features indicative of
environmental conditions beneficial to our survival. Thus, similar to other animal species, we
choose environments that provide basic biological needs of food, water, shelter, and safety. This
aesthetic satisfaction in our appraisal of potential habitats is further explained in Appleton’s
(1975) prospect-refuge theory. We prefer landscapes that offer “the ability to see (prospect)
without being seen (refuge)” (a concept first coined by Konrad Lorenz in 1952) because those
features helped satisfy our early biological needs to pursue prey and avoid predators.
Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1989) information-processing theory is generally supportive of
Appleton’s theories of landscape preference being related to survival behavior. But, information-
processing theory also integrates ideas from Gibson’s (1979) affordance theory (i.e., we evaluate
landscapes for their direct benefits/offerings or potential for desirable attributes/activities) and
Lynch’s (1960) theory of legibility (i.e., we evaluate the ease in which parts of a cityscape can be
recognized and organized into a mental map, helping us orient and find our way). Essentially,
human survival depends on information. Compared to other animal species, humans have limited
inherent physical abilities such as speed, strength, sharp teeth, or protective covering that aid in
hunting and avoiding danger. Instead, the human species has adapted for survival by developing
17
keen powers of perception and deduction (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Simonds and Starke 2006;
Wolfe et al. 2006). We perceive information from the immediate environment and, particularly,
from visual stimuli. Visual stimuli are especially powerful because not only can we interpret
them directly, but indirectly, they also conjure mental images and evoke associations previously
processed and stored in our brains (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989).
Additionally, humans are strongly spatially oriented (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Bell
2004; Wolf et al. 2006). We examine specific elements in a landscape, but we are also acutely
aware of the location, spatial arrangement, and movement of those elements. This information
guides and motivates our behavior. Whether consciously or subconsciously, we use information
to judge a situation as good or bad, pleasant or painful, useful or useless and to act or react,
imagine alternatives, or anticipate future circumstances. We tend to believe that the more
information we acquire, the more accurate our assessment. Therefore, we not only continuously
process information but also actively seek additional information. Consequently, Kaplan and
Kaplan (1989) conclude that human aesthetic appreciation and preference are for landscapes with
perceivable attributes that facilitate and stimulate the acquisition of knowledge.
Based on more than two decades of human survey research, information-processing
theory identifies four primary attributes of preferred landscapes. Preferred landscapes are
understandable, via attributes that embody coherence and legibility, and encourage exploration,
via attributes that embody complexity and mystery (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). Coherence is
perceived as the orderly arrangement or organization of landscape elements. Distinctive features
that increase one’s confidence in navigating through, or orienting within, a landscape contribute
to legibility. Complexity is defined as the diversity in the type of elements in a landscape,
arousing interest and encouraging further exploration. And, mystery results when the
18
composition and/or configuration of landscape elements suggest there is more to see if one keeps
moving through the landscape. When we can understand and orient ourselves in our
surroundings, we feel secure and confident. When we can explore, we feel challenged and
intrigued by opportunities for new information (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Kaplan et al. 1998).
Despite the myriad of possible cultural influences, differences in individual
characteristics and abilities, and varying emphases in biological theories, an extensive body of
empirical research illustrates a notable consistency in human landscape preference (Nassauer
1995). That is, humans prefer natural-looking landscapes (vegetation and landforms with few
built structures) with views across an expanse (openness, extent). In addition, the preferred
landscape includes a water feature (pond, lake, or river) or indication of water (green vegetation
or flowering plants) and grass-like groundcover with scattered single or grouped canopy trees
(Appleton 1975; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Thorne and Huang 1991; Nassauer 1995; Parsons and
Daniel 2002; Lohr and Pearson-Mims 2006; Hill and Daniel 2008). This general description
coincides with the Savanna Theory/Hypothesis (Orians 1980, 1986; Balling and Falk 1982;
Heerwagon and Orians 1993), which explains human preference for these savanna-like
landscapes is linked to an innate connection to our native habitat of origin—the African Savanna.
This landscape pattern also expresses prospect-refuge opportunities and coherence, legibility,
complexity, and mystery, linking to both Appleton’s (1975) and Kaplans’ (1989) theories,
respectively.
The Concept of an Ecological Aesthetic
Nowhere does the above discussion explicitly suggest that landscape aesthetic
experiences and/or landscape preferences are in response to perceivable attributes associated
with ecologically sound landscapes. High visual aesthetic quality may or may not coincide with
19
high ecological quality (Daniel 2001; Gobster et al. 2007). Additionally, critical ecological
processes that operate outside the realm of human perception may be only partially, if at all,
reflected in the landscape attributes we find pleasurable (Mozingo 1997; Gobster et al. 2007).
Indeed, we are less likely to be concerned about, or act upon, those processes we are unable to
see (e.g., sub-microscopic and global-scale phenomena) or otherwise participate in directly (e.g.,
instantaneous or geologic phenomena) (Welchman 1999; Gobster et al. 2007).
Consequently, individuals may act to sustain feelings of pleasure regardless of whether
the associated landscape characteristics are conducive to beneficial ecological function. For
example, residential landscapes of neatly manicured lawns and agricultural landscapes of
orderly, weed-free crop rows may have social value and aesthetic appeal but can cause
unintended ecological damage. Alternatively, natural prairies or wetlands of considerable
ecological value may be judged unpleasant, disorderly, or uninteresting, and therefore, may be
less likely to attract our attention (Nassauer 1997; Gobster et al. 2007).
One strategy offered to resolve possible contradictions between ecology and aesthetics is
to align aesthetic preferences with ecologically sound landscapes by promoting the concept of an
ecological aesthetic (e.g., see Leopold 1966; Thorne and Huang 1991; Gobster 1995; Nassauer
1997; Gobster et al. 2007; Hill and Daniel 2008). An ecological aesthetic broadens the scope of
the landscape aesthetic experience by incorporating an appreciation of the structure and function
of ecological systems (Gobster 1995; Gobster et al. 2007). Originating primarily from Aldo
Leopold’s concept of a land aesthetic (Leopold 1966; Gobster 1995), an ecological aesthetic is a
normative concept that links preference with ethics. The concept implies that it is good, or moral,
for humans to experience aesthetic pleasure from, and to prefer, ecologically sound landscapes.
20
Landscape preferences inconsistent with "proper" ecological function are deemed unethical, or
immoral, and need to be altered (Gobster et al. 2007; Hill and Daniel 2008).
According to proponents, an ecological aesthetic experience will result when the
participant derives pleasure from understanding the ecological benefits directly or indirectly
associated with landscape features. Furthermore, once ecological processes and relationships are
understood, the aesthetic experience can become more intense and meaningful (Leopold 1966;
Eaton 1997). Leopold articulated this connection in his essays, believing that the condition of
stability (capacity for sustained functioning and renewal) and integrity (representation of
diversity and wholeness) of the biotic community begets beauty, explicitly implying a more
profound meaning of beauty beyond that of merely scenic (Leopold 1966; Flader 1995; Gobster
1995). As interpreted by Flader and Callicott (1991), Leopold judged the aesthetic appeal of a
landscape as having “little to do with its adventitious colors and shapes – and nothing to do with
its scenic and picturesque qualities – but everything to do with the integrity of its evolutionary
heritage and ecological processes.”
Leopold further believed that understanding ecological relationships required much more
than knowledge obtained through books and lectures. Rather, the key to fully understanding and
appreciating ecological forms and processes was to experience the landscape as an active
participant (Gobster 1995, 1999). An ecological aesthetic landscape experience requires
intellectual as much as perceptual engagement and employs all senses, not only vision. The
active participant begins to develop a more “refined taste in natural objects” and to embrace the
form-follows-function philosophy (Flader and Callicott 1991). That is, once proper ecological
function is established, proper landscape form will naturally follow in the resulting composition
and configuration of comprising elements (Mozingo 1997; Bell 2004).
21
Theoretically, ecological aesthetic experiences that engage the intellect, senses, and
emotions in a greater understanding and appreciation of natural systems and processes can lead
to preference for ecologically sound landscapes (Gobster 1999; Gobster et al. 2007). Where
ecology and aesthetics are misaligned in landscape preferences, knowledge and design
interventions are proposed as mechanisms to alter these preference judgments and values.
Knowledge interventions include community activities that enhance ecological knowledge or
otherwise facilitate active participation in ecologically oriented landscape experiences. Design
interventions encourage a community to consider creative, visual alternative landscape patterns
that spatially arrange cultural and natural elements to more closely align with beneficial
ecological functions and processes (Gobster et al. 2007).
Not so Fast . . . In the Defense of Scenic Beauty
Agreement on the potential advantages of an ecological aesthetic, though, is opposed by
disagreement on whether the concept is practically or ethically attainable (Gobster et al. 2007).
Where aesthetic preferences conflict with ecological function in the landscape, can and should
those preferences be changed? First, an ecological aesthetic is often contrasted to, and separated
from, a scenic (visual) aesthetic (e.g. Callicott 1983; Flader and Callicott 1991; Gobster 1995,
1999; Gobster et al. 2007) – the latter often judged as sensually and emotionally superficial,
uninformed, morally inferior, passively experienced, short-lived, and often ecologically
incompatible (Parsons and Daniel 2002). This conceived superficiality and fleetingness of the
scenic aesthetic assumes that human landscape preference is both expendable and easily
malleable. Although preference can be a learned behavior, long-standing cultural inclinations
and social norms are often deeply ingrained. Furthermore, other well-established theories explain
that at least part of preference behavior is biologically entrenched and strongly linked to
22
inseparable cognitive and emotional processes that inform decisions having personal or social
consequence (Appleton 1975; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Nassauer 1997; Parsons and Daniel
2002).
Second, persuasive information that employs fearful or threatening messages or
minimizes the complexity of aesthetic-ecological interactions in cultural landscapes raises both
ethical and efficacy issues (Gobster et al. 2007). Others have questioned whether humans have a
predisposition to find intrinsic value in ecologically sound environments (e.g., Lothian 1999;
Welchman 1999). A more fundamental question is whether, and to what extent, the recognition
of ecological value and function should be considered part of a landscape aesthetic experience
(Gobster et al. 2007)?
Third, an ecological aesthetic assumes that proper ecological function is well understood
and that the scientific community agrees on how to define and measure indicators of ecological
health (e.g., biodiversity, resilience, and sustainability). Not only is understanding incomplete
and consensus lacking on definitions and measurements, but also on what degree, level, or
combination of complex ecological attributes constitutes an ecologically sound landscape
(Daniel 2001; Parsons and Daniel 2002; Taylor 2002). Promoting an ecological aesthetic that
expects behavioral change in response to ethical argument and ecological enlightenment –
despite assumptions, ambiguities, and ecological complexities – is criticized as presumptuous
and premature (Parsons and Daniel 2002).
Finally, advocating an ecological aesthetic to protect ecological processes that operate
outside human perceptible spatial and temporal scales neglects that we are a physiologically
visual species. Although the powers of perception and deduction we use to interpret the
environment depend on all of our senses, more than 85 percent of perception is driven by sight
23
(Bell 2004; Simonds and Starke 2006). Thus, directly visible landscape manifestations of
ecological processes are most important to humans whose lives and survival revolve around
appearances and spatial relationships (Tuan 1974; Bell 2004). Accordingly, acceptable and
implementable approaches to harmonize nature-culture relationships will be, foremost,
observable and understandable – approaches conceived within the scale of human perception and
experience (Kaplan et al. 1998; Linehan and Gross 1998).
Biological and geological processes interacting with human activity create and alter the
spatial composition and configuration of landform, land cover, and land use within a landscape
(Forman and Godron 1986; Forman 1995; Daniel 2001; Dee 2001; Bell 2004). To the extent that
these resulting biophysical features are visible, landscapes provide varying amounts of ecological
information at a human-perceptible scale and indirectly reflect the condition of underlying
ecological processes (Mozingo 1997; Gobster 1999; Daniel 2001; Gobster et al. 2007). In
considering how we might use this relationship to begin to reconcile the contentions between
ecology and aesthetics, two critical questions warrant further exploration. First, under what
conditions, if any, is the amount of visible landscape structure enough to communicate and/or
support ecological function? Second, to what extent, if any, is that same visible structure
compatible with, or conducive to, landscape aesthetic experiences?
Landscape design is a powerful tool for illustrating and exploring viable alternatives for
integrating ecology and aesthetics and for making the invisible visible in cultural landscapes
(Mozingo 1997; Nassauer 1997; Thayer 1998; Helphand and Melnick 1998; Meyer 2008;
Nassauer and Opdam 2008). In the normative ecological aesthetic, human aesthetic experiences
are subservient to ecologically “correct” landscape structure (Mozingo 1997; Spirn 2002; Bell
2004). To become socially acceptable and implementable, however, landscape designs must
24
strive to fuse ecology and aesthetics so neither overpowers the other. Optimally, a unity emerges
between landscape form and function that embraces human experience and conveys as much
about a landscape’s aesthetic performance as its ecological performance (Mozingo 1997; Bell
2004; Meyer 2008).
25
References
Appleton, J. 1975. The experience of landscape. John Wiley & Sons. London.
Appleton, J. 1996. The experience of landscape. 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons. West Sussex,
England.
Balling, J. D., and Falk, J. H. 1982. Development of visual preference for natural environments.
Environment and Behavior 14(1):5-28.
Bell, S. 2004. Elements of visual design in the landscape. 2nd edition. Spon Press. London.
Bell, S. 1999. Landscape: pattern, perception, and process. E & FN Spon. London.
Berleant, A. 1984. Aesthetic participation and the urban environment. Urban Resources 1(1):37-
41.
Berleant, A. 1997. Living in the landscape: toward an aesthetics of environment. University

Press of Kansas. Lawrence, KS.
Bourassa, S. C. 1991. The aesthetics of landscape. Belhaven Press. London.
Callicott, J. B. 1983. Leopold’s land aesthetic. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
38(4):329-332.
Daniel, T. C. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st
century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54:267-281.
Planning 57:169-175.
Dee, C. 2001. Form and fabric in landscape architecture: a visual introduction. Spon Press.
London.
Dewey, J. 1934. Art as experience. Minton, Balch and Co. New York.
Eaton, M. M. 1989. Aesthetics and the good life. Farleigh Dickinson Press. Rutherford, NJ.
Eaton, M. M. 1997. The beauty that requires health. Pages 85-106 in Placing nature: culture and
landscape ecology. J. I. Nassauer, editor. Island Press. Washington, D.C.
Flader, S. L. 1995. Aldo Leopold and the evolution of a land ethic. Pages 3-24 in Aldo Leopold:
the man and his legacy. T. Tanner, editor. Soil and Water Conservation Society. Ankeny, IA.
Flader, S. L. and J. B. Callicott. 1991. The river of the mother of God and other essays by Aldo
Leopold. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI.
26
Forman, R. T. T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons. New York.
Forman. R. T. T. 1995. Some general principles of landscape and regional ecology. Landscape
Ecology 10(3):133-142.
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin. Boston, MA.
Gobster, P. H. 1995. Aldo Leopold’s ecological esthetic: integrating esthetic and biodiversity
values. Journal of Forestry 93:6-10.
Gobster, P. H. 1999. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape

Journal 18(1):54-64.
Gobster, P. H., J. I. Nassauer, T. C. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. The shared landscape: what does
aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22:959-972.
Heerwagen, J. and G. Orians. 1993. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In The Biophilia
Hypothesis, ed. Stephen Kellert and Edward Wilson, 138-172. Washington DC: Island Press.
Helphand K. I., and R. Z. Melnick. 1998. Editor’s introduction. Landscape Journal, Special
Issue. Eco-revelatory design: nature constructed/nature revealed. Page ix.
Hill, D., and T. C. Daniel. 2008. Foundations for an ecological aesthetic: can information alter
landscape preferences? Society & Natural Resources 21:34-49.

Leopold, A. 1966. A Sand County almanac with essays on conservation from Round River.
Oxford University Press, Inc. and Ballantine Books. New York.
Linehan, J. R., and M. Gross. 1998. Back to the future, back to basics: the social ecology of
Lohr, V. I. and C. H. Pearson-Mims. 2006. Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and
conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior 38(5):667-688.
27
Lothian, A. 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in
the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning 44:177-198.
Lynch 1960 Lynch, K. 1960. The image of the city. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
Meyer, E. K. 2008. Sustaining beauty. The performance of appearance: a manifesto in three

parts. Journal of Landscape Architecture 1(Spring):6-23.
Mozingo, L. A. 1997. The aesthetics of ecological design: seeing science as culture. Landscape
Journal 16(1):46-59.
Nassauer, J. I. 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10(4):229-
237.
Nassauer, J. I. 1997. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. Pages 65-83 in
Washington, D.C.
Nassauer, J. I. and P. Opdam. 2008. Design in science: extending the landscape ecology
paradigm. Landscape Ecology 23(6):633-644.
Orians, G. H. 1980. Habitat selection: general theory and applications to human behavior. Pages
49-77 in The evolution of human social behavior. J. S. Lockard, editor. Elsevier, New York.
Orians, G. H. 1986. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. Pages 3-25
in Landscape meanings and values. E. C. Penning-Rowsell and D. Lowenthal, editors. Allen
and Unwin. London.
Parsons, R. and T. C. Daniel. 2002. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics.
Landscape and Urban Planning 60:43-56.
Simonds, J. O. and B. W. Starke. 2006. Landscape architecture: a manual of environmental

planning and design. 4th edition. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Spirn, A. W. 2002. The authority of nature: conflict, confusion, and renewal in design, planning,
and ecology. Pages 29-49 in B.R. Johnson, and K. Hill, editors. Ecology and design:
frameworks for learning. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Stokes, S. N., A. E. Watson, and S. S. Mastran 1997. Saving America’s countryside: a guide to
rural conservation. 2nd edition. For The National Trust for Historic Preservation. The Johns
Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD.
Taylor, P. D. 2002. Fragmentation and cultural landscapes: tightening the relationship between
human beings and the environment. Landscape and Urban Planning 58:93-99.
28
Thayer, Jr. R. L. 1998. Landscape as an ecologically revealing language. Landscape Journal,
Special Issue. Eco-revelatory design: nature constructed/nature revealed. Pages 118-129.
Thorne, J. F. and C. S. Huang. 1991. Toward a landscape ecological aesthetic: methodologies for
designers and planners. Landscape and Urban Planning 21:61-79.
Tress, B., G. Tress, and G. Fry. 2005. Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations
and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 70:177-191.
Tress, B., G. Tress, H. Décamps, and A. d’Hauteserre. 2001. Bridging human and natural
sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57:137-141.
Tuan, Y. 1989. Surface phenomena and aesthetic experience. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 79(2):233-241.
Welchman, J. 1999. The virtues of stewardship. Environmental Ethics 21:411-423.
Wolfe, J. M., K. R. Kluender, D. M. Levi. 2006. Sensation and perception. Sinauer Associates,
Inc. Sunderland, MA.
29
CHAPTER THREE
Linda R. Klein
(submitted to Landscape Journal)
LINDA KLEIN is an environmental consultant and owner of LRK Research & Editing in
Pullman, Washington. She worked previously as a private consultant for a multi-year, ecological
restoration project on a salmon-spawning tributary within the Columbia River Watershed. Linda
received a M.S. degree in Soil Science in 1995 and is currently a Ph.D. candidate in the School
of the Environment at Washington State University. Her doctoral research includes the
application of landscape ecology and landscape design toward the evolution of sustainable
agricultural landscapes.
30
ABSTRACT A partnership between landscape ecology (LE) and landscape architecture (LA) is
poised to make a vital contribution to current, high-profile discussions on food security,
agricultural sustainability, and ecosystem service conservation. In agricultural settings, creative
and intentional arrangement of landscape elements has been poorly recognized, yet has the
potential to enhance both visual aesthetic quality and ecological function while offsetting
system-degrading processes. Overriding emphasis on the ecological processes that support
agricultural productivity discounts realistic opportunities for sufficiently rousing visual qualities
to trigger transformative aesthetic experiences capable of inspiring human care, effort, and
understanding — required and indicative of sustainable landscapes. Successfully initiating and
nurturing these mutually beneficial nature-culture relationships, however, will depend on
whether ecological and aesthetic values coincide in visually perceptible landscape attributes.
Given associated sustainability concerns and cultural significance, agricultural landscapes
provide a ready canvas for LE-LA collaborations to bridge theoretical foundations and design
structural alternatives with coincident ecological and aesthetic function. Using the current
imperative for integrating landscape-scale buffer systems, I illustrate how particular emergent
visual, structural, and functional attributes may transcend uniqueness of place and become iconic
of sustainable agricultural landscapes.
KEYWORDS Aesthetic experience, agroecosystem, conservation buffers, ecosystem services,
emergent properties, food security, landscape design, landscape ecology, landscape preference,
pastoral aesthetic, visual quality
31
INTRODUCTION
Conceptually, sustainable landscapes are holistic systems that enable the symbiotic, co-evolution
of ecology and culture — sustaining not only vital natural resources, but also basic needs and
quality of life for humans (Naveh 2000; Blaschke 2006; Barrett, Farina, and Barrett 2009).
Practically, creating and maintaining these landscapes will require human effort and care (Dubos
1976; Nassauer 1997; Décamps 2001; Merchant 2003; Meyer 2008). The centrality of humans to
landscape sustainability in no way diminishes landscape ecology's scientific approach for
understanding biophysical pattern-process relationships (Hobbs 1997; Haines-Young 2000; Wu
2006). Rather, this critical human factor underscores the complementarity and co-dependence of
ecological sustainability and cultural sustainability — one cannot advance without the other
(Thayer 1989; Naveh 2000; Décamps 2001; Tress, Tress, and Fry 2005; Wu 2006; Barrett,
Farina, and Barrett 2009). Hence, effectively guiding landscape sustainability hinges on
understanding spatially explicit structural characteristics that influence ecological functioning
and linking those relationships to human experience, social values, and cultural meanings and
expectations (Haines-Young 2000; Miller and Hobbs 2002; Blaschke 2006; Wu 2010).
Termorshuizen and Opdam (2009) propose this link be established by extending
landscape ecology's pattern-process paradigm to include value (that is, pattern-process-value)
placed on goods and services humans receive from natural ecosystems. This concept of
ecosystem services (Daily 1997) has been widely adopted in sustainability science as the
theoretical basis for researching, measuring, and monitoring relationships between humans and
Earth's life support systems (MEA 2005; Carpenter et al. 2009). Plausibly, if ecological
structure-function relationships can be validly characterized in terms of these beneficial services,
32
the performance of landscape systems can become socially valuable and culturally meaningful
(Haines-Young 2000; Potschin and Haines-Young 2006; Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009).
Concurrently, the promise of landscape ecology (LE)-landscape architecture (LA)
collaborations in sustainable landscape design has been widely accepted and articulated;
paradoxically, extensive application is far from reality (Nassauer 1995; Hobbs 1997; Mozingo
1997; Ahern 2005; Blaschke 2006; Dramstad, Olson, and Forman 1996; Meyer 2008; Lovell and
Johnston 2009a; Wu 2010). Recent proposals broaden the role of LA by calling for design
(hereafter, refers to the practical application of LA) as either an extension to LE's pattern-process
paradigm (that is, pattern-process-design) (Nassauer and Opdam 2008) or part of a new design-
in-science paradigm (Musacchio 2011). Both proposals endorse design as process and medium
for applying, communicating, and visualizing ecological information and for unifying local
stakeholders and science- and practice-based disciplines in transdisciplinary research and
problem-solving. Yet, focusing design only in these supporting roles — although indisputably
valuable — perpetuates an emphasis on ecological sustainability and discounts the importance of
landscape appearance to human flourishing and cultural sustainability (Nassauer 1989, 1992;
Thorne and Huang 1991; Arler 2000; Meyer 2008).
Accordingly, we fail to acknowledge that visual quality, including scenic beauty, can
provoke transformative aesthetic experiences capable of inspiring human care and actions
supportive of sustainable landscapes (Meyer 2008). Consequently, design's capacity to play a
primary role in directing landscape appearance has yet to be given equal or explicit consideration
within either the realm of landscape sustainability or LE-LA collaborations. Further hindering
design's more influential role are ongoing dismissals of visual quality as subservient to ecology
(Thayer 1989; Bell 2004; Lowenthal 2007; Meyer 2008), perceived incompatibilities between
33
ecological function and aesthetic preference (Mozingo 1997; Parsons and Daniel 2002), and
polarizing debates between scenic and ecological aesthetics (Gobster et al. 2007; Jorgensen
2011) (Figure 1).
In this paper, I argue that landscape ecology has an exceptional opportunity to enlist
design as an equal and complementary partner in this primary role within the context of modern,
agricultural landscapes. In agricultural settings, cultivating long-term, mutually reinforcing
ecological-cultural partnerships may have no greater urgency, influence, or potential.
Sustainability concerns associated with widespread negative ecological and societal effects of
more than 50 years of large-scale, energy- and chemical-intensive agriculture are escalating and
well-documented (see Reganold, Papendick, and Parr 1990; Reganold et al. 2011; Tilman et al.
2002; MEA 2005; Kareiva et al. 2007; Pretty 2008). Given that agricultural land use (cultivation
and grazing) occupies more than 50 percent of Earth's habitable surface area (MEA 2005), these
landscapes have an equally disproportionate capacity to reverse these negative trends (Pimentel,
Stackow, et al. 1992; Bennett, Radford, and Haslem 2006). Coincidentally, the visible features
that characterize agricultural landscapes embody a fundamental nature-culture relationship and
evoke a myriad of deep-rooted meanings, values, and human experiences (Dubos 1976; Carlson
1985; Nassauer 1989; Stokes, Watson, and Mastran 1997; Sutton 1999; Schauman 2007).
Here I begin by elaborating ecosystem services and their inherent tradeoffs within the
context of agricultural ecosystems and current interest in understanding how landscape-scale
conservation buffers might facilitate agricultural sustainability. I then highlight cultural
dimensions — particularly aesthetic experience — of agricultural landscapes that have, so far,
been ancillary to sustainability discussions and research. Following, I examine relationships
between ecology and aesthetics in the appearance of agricultural landscapes. Based on these
34
relationships, I describe how a synergistic LE-LA partnership might fuse ecology and aesthetics
in landscape alternatives capable of tapping the motivating power of the pastoral aesthetic.
Finally, I illustrate how the LE-LA partnership can bridge disciplinary theory and principles in
designing landscape-scale buffer systems by asking, "What could a sustainable agricultural
landscape look like?"
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
Ecosystem services — benefits natural ecosystems provide for human survival and well-being —
are generally divided into the following four categories (Daily 1997; MEA 2005):
1. provisioning (for example, food, fuel, fiber, fresh water),
2. regulating (for example, pollination, pest control, air quality, soil fertility and retention,
water supply and purification),
3. cultural (for example, aesthetic, spiritual, educational, recreational), and
4. supporting (for example, photosynthesis, soil formation, primary production, water and
nutrient cycling).
Provisioning, regulating, and cultural services are those that humans can directly appreciate and
participate in through use, consumption, or experience. Supporting services include ecological
processes that typically operate outside the spatial or temporal realm of human perception, but
are necessary to ensure the production of the other services (MEA 2005).
Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs
Agricultural ecosystems, or agroecosystems, are unique because the ecosystem services they
provide result from human agency interacting with natural ecosystems, rather than from natural
ecosystems alone. Furthermore, by intentionally manipulating materials, inputs, and processes to
maximize crop and livestock productivity (provisioning services), the operation of modern
35
agroecosystems inescapably induces tradeoffs among other services (MEA 2005; Kinzig 2009).
For example, all forms of agriculture, whether conventional (managed intensively with external
inputs of energy and synthetic nutrients and pesticides) or alternative (managed as integrated,
organic, biodynamic, ecological, or conservation agriculture), are less structurally and
functionally complex and diverse compared to the natural ecosystems they replaced. This
simplification of ecological structure and function disrupts natural habitats, recycling
mechanisms, and regulatory feedback loops, spawning systems more vulnerable and less
resistant and resilient to disturbances, hazards, or stressors (Vitousek et al. 1997; Ryszkowski
2002; MEA 2005; Tscharntke et al. 2005; Kareiva et al. 2007; Pretty 2008). Likewise, all
agroecosystems necessarily entail soil manipulation and exposure, nutrient and pesticide inputs
(organic or synthetic), and hydrologic modifications (drainage or irrigation), and therefore, are
inherently "leaky" and never entirely environmentally benign (Trewavas 2001; Lowrance and
Crow 2002; Pretty 2008).
On the other hand, the benefits of intensive management and technological advances that
define modern, large-scale conventional agriculture are unequivocal (Trewavas 2001; Tilman et
al. 2002; Pretty 2008). These vast, high-yielding production systems support much of the world's
seven-billion people and enhance cultural well-being by reducing hunger and providing basic
materials for a good life. Whereas all agricultural land use inescapably replaces and fragments
natural ecosystems, intensive production practices have prevented additional ecosystem and
biodiversity losses by growing more food on less land (Trewavas 2001; Tilman et al. 2002).
Unfortunately, the unintended societal, environmental, and human health costs of ecosystem
service tradeoffs are increasingly pervasive, persistent, and damaging (Daily 1997; Altieri 1999;
MEA 2005; Pimentel, Hepperly, et al. 2005; Pretty 2008). Furthermore, diminishing sources and
36
effectiveness of non-renewable, fossil fuel-based energy, pesticides, and fertilizers have raised
production costs and jeopardized agriculture's continued reliance on these inputs to subsidize
ecosystem service tradeoffs (MEA 2005; Scherr and McNeely 2008).
Counterbalancing System-Degrading Processes at the Landscape-Scale
These concerns, coupled with world population projections of nine billion by 2050 and
recognition that Earth's most productive cropland is already in use, have ignited renewed vigor in
sustainability and food security debates (see Pretty 2008; The Royal Society 2009; Glover et al.
2010; NRC 2010; Chappell and LaValle 2011; Godfrey et al. 2011; Reganold et al. 2011).
Considerable and often polarizing discussion has ensued regarding the merits (and shortcomings)
of conventional versus alternative forms of agriculture to ensure future production while
protecting biodiversity, natural resources, and ecosystem services (see Trewavas 2001; 2004;
Tilman et al. 2002; Pretty 2008; Scherr and McNeely 2008; Chapell and LaValle 2011). But,
reexamination of opposing arguments, including those establishing the "land-sparing" versus
"wildlife-friendly" farming dichotomy (see Green et al. 2005; Fischer et al. 2008), reveals
noteworthy agreement on several widely applicable strategies, regardless of agroecosystem type
employed. Pertinent to landscape ecology is growing consensus that coordination of multiple
farms is necessary to realize significant reductions in off-site environmental damage or
improvements in landscape-scale ecosystem services (for example, soil regeneration, carbon
sequestration, hydrologic cycle regulation) (Ryszkowski 2002; Tilman et al. 2002; Maresch,
Walbridge, and Kugler 2008; Pretty 2008).
Gaining particular momentum is agreement on the potential for permanent, landscape-
scale vegetation buffers to complement and enhance farm-scale sustainability and conservation
efforts that improve infiltration, soil retention, and input efficiency (Ryszkowski and Jankowiak
37
2002; Groffman et al. 2007; Walter et al. 2007; Bentrup 2008; Scherr and McNeely 2008). In
contrast to the small area upon which they are typically warranted, vegetation buffers can deliver
a disproportionately high amount of ecological function and beneficial services (see review by
Lovell and Sullivan 2006). But, because empirical evidence on buffer function and efficacy is
predominantly based on farm-, field-, or buffer-specific (windbreaks, field borders, grassed
waterways, riparian plantings) studies, our understanding of how benefits translate to larger
spatial scales is limited (Lovell and Sullivan 2006; Scherr and McNeeley 2008).
With increased knowledge of landscape-scale ecological processes, Ryszkowski (2002)
asserts how natural ecosystems are used and altered, rather than their use or alteration per se, has
greater influence on environmental degradation. This knowledge is key for spatially configuring
natural vegetation into agricultural matrices to function as feedback loops that counterbalance
system-deteriorating, ecosystem service tradeoffs and allow sustainable landscape systems to
evolve (Ryszkowski and Jankowiak 2002; Bennett, Radford, and Haslem 2006; Groffman et al.
2007; Maresch, Walbridge, and Kugler 2008).
CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
At the landscape-scale, restructuring strategies are also amenable to more fully regarding the
cultural dimensions of sustainability and ecosystem services (Lovell and Johnston 2009b;
Musacchio 2009). So far, resource conservation has focused on enhancing ecosystem services
that directly support production, while consideration of cultural services (aesthetic, spiritual,
educational, and recreational amenities) has been missing, or secondary at best (MEA 2005;
Scherr and McNeely 2008). This neglect is partly due to difficulty measuring the often subjective
and intangible character of these amenities (MEA 2005). Additionally, cultural services are
38
usually perceived, experienced, and appreciated at larger spatial scales and traditionally
associated with more pristine or minimally disturbed natural environments.
Aesthetic Experience of the Pastoral Landscape
In many parts of the world, however, agricultural landscapes are not only valued as sources of
food, fiber, and fuel that physiologically sustain us. These landscapes are also cherished sources
and experiences of everyday nature, open space, recreation, and scenic beauty that sensuously
delight and emotionally inspire and renew us (Dubos 1976; Sutton 1999; Arler 2000; Antrop
2000; Brady 2006; Lowenthal 2007). Although people may be unmoved by scientific or moral
appeals for resource conservation, they often feel quite strongly about the care and protection of
landscapes that evoke sensuous and emotional gratification (Tuan 1974; Parsons and Daniel
2002; Stokes, Watson, and Mastran 1997; Mozingo 1997; Meyer 2008). Several researchers
(including Mozingo 1997; Nassauer 1997; Linehan and Gross 1998; Parsons and Daniel 2002;
Décamps 2001; Gobster et al. 2007; Meyer 2008) contend that motivating land-use behavior
toward sustainability and conservation goals may ultimately depend on understanding the
underlying mechanisms affecting human aesthetic response and attachment to landscapes.
Undeniably, humans have a longstanding and multi-faceted connection with the
countryside – a sentiment captured in the pastoral aesthetic, which conceptualizes agricultural
landscapes as perpetually green, peaceful, comforting, and productive (Marx 1964; Schauman
2007). An essential quality of the pastoral is Nassauer's (1997) aesthetic of care, exhibited in
well-kept farmsteads of crisply painted farmhouses, barns, and fences and weed-free, orderly
patterns of crops, fields, and hedgerows. Also embedded in the pastoral aesthetic is a stewardship
ethic (Nassauer 1989; Welchman 1999). Farmers are collectively characterized as good stewards,
implying devoted and enduring human-land relationships that ensure productivity and protect
39
natural resources (Stokes, Watson, and Mastran 1997; Nowak and Pierce 2007). A farming way
of life is perceived and valued by many societies as virtuous and benevolent and reflects hard
work, personal pride, and community contributions (Carlson 1985; Nassauer 1997; Egoz,
Bowring, and Perkins 2001; Schauman 2007).
Visual Attributes and Cultural Significance of the Pastoral Aesthetic
The visual epitome of the pastoral aesthetic is conveyed in remnants, memoirs, photographs, and
idyllic, artistic portrayals of the mid-19th to mid-20th century European and North American
countryside (Carlson 1985; Stokes, Watson, and Mastran 1997; Tscharntke et al. 2005;
Schauman 2007) (Figure 2). These earlier landscapes were dotted with an array of smaller-sized
farmsteads, typically managed as diverse and integrated systems of crops, livestock, and natural
areas. Farms depended on their biodiversity for pollination and pest control. Woodlots,
hedgerows, shelterbelts, and riparian areas also provided fuelwood, wildlife habitat, scenic
quality, hunting and fishing opportunities, and water and wind erosion control (Dubos 1976;
Carlson 1985; Tscharntke et al. 2005) — what we now call ecosystem services. This general
characterization is not suggesting that all farming practices during this era were environmentally
benign. Still, these more structurally diverse and visually complex agricultural landscapes are
defended as exemplary and attainable, symbiotic relationships between humans and nature
(Dubos 1976; Brady 2006).
Aesthetic appreciation of agricultural landscapes also stems from their historic and
cultural resources and meanings, which often evoke deep-rooted emotional responses (Carlson
1985; Stokes, Watson, and Mastran 1997; Sutton 1999; Egoz, Bowring, and Perkins 2001;
Lowenthal 2007). Specific cultural elements established within the biophysical backdrop of a
given locale communicates the bond that develops through a community's shared way of life.
40
Historic and cultural features — hedgerows, stone walls, wooden fences, walking paths,
windmills, grain silos, railroad trestles, one-room schoolhouses, covered bridges, churches, and
grange halls — often provide coherence and continuity, venerating the passage of time and
connecting farmsteads to the rural landscape community (Carlson 1985; Thorne and Huang
1991; Stokes, Watson, and Mastran 1997; Brady 2006). Long-term residents often experience
feelings of attachment or love, dubbed topophilia, in landscapes they call "home", where
perceived characteristics instill assurance and comfort and a sense of place and belonging (Tuan
1974; Stokes, Watson, and Mastran 1997).
A POTENTIAL CATALYST FOR SUSTAINABLE LAND-USE BEHAVIOR
Clearly, landscape aesthetic quality has waned concurrently with ecological function in the
transition to large expanses of simplified and intensively managed agroecosystems. Alongside
natural vegetation, many of the aforementioned cultural elements that simultaneously contribute
to aesthetic appeal, meaning, and experience have been removed or abandoned and in disrepair
(Carlson 1985; Burel and Baudry 1995; Lowenthal 2007). The loss and degradation of cultural
features are also indicative of broader, negative societal side effects, including rural community
instability and cultural discontinuity (Carlson 1985; Thorne and Huang 1991; Stokes, Watson,
and Mastran 1997; Scherr and McNeely 2008). Nonetheless, the pastoral aesthetic — upheld in
cultural beliefs, emotional attachments, and visual expectations — assumes a harmonious nature-
culture relationship that is pervasive, culturally ingrained, and resistant to change (Marx 1964;
Nassauer 1995, 1997; Schauman 2007). This entrenched hope for "seeing only the best"
(Schauman 2007) in the countryside offers a potentially powerful, untapped motivating force that
could be channeled toward sustainable land-use behavior (Parsons and Daniel 2002; Schauman
2007; Nassauer 2011).
41
Performance of Appearance and Emergent Landscape Properties
To tap the potential motivating power and optimism of the pastoral, we must appreciate
landscape appearance — form, space, pattern, and movement — that triggers physiological and
psychological expressions of aesthetic gratification. Exemplified in the pastoral aesthetic, non-
visual expressive and associative qualities are largely inseparable from visual and scenic
qualities (Carlson 1985). Moreover, the aesthetic experience encompasses the combined visual,
expressive, and associative qualities that emerge from the pastoral scene in its entirety.
Importantly, above simply feelings of pleasure, immediate sensory reactions and intense or deep-
rooted emotional connections to visually perceptible landscape structure can challenge our
ethics, stimulate our intellect, and transform our mental state (Meyer 2008). By persuading,
engaging, and enchanting humans in this manner, the appearance of landscape performs, or
functions, in culturally and socially meaningful ways (Parsons and Daniel 2002; Meyer 2008).
For these complex aesthetic experiences to motivate conservation actions supportive of
agricultural sustainability, the performance of appearance becomes as critical as ecological and
production functions. Parallel to aesthetic experience, tradeoffs between regulating and
provisioning services can be linked to distinctive properties that emerge from the spatial
composition, configuration, and relationships of elements comprising the agricultural landscape.
Restructuring strategies to maximize synergies and minimize tradeoffs among all services will
require understanding the emergent visual, structural, and functional properties that define
overall landscape performance. Ultimately, visual qualities must be sufficiently rousing, evoking,
and enduring to instill the love, respect, and understanding necessary for humans to find new
agricultural landscape configurations worthy of care and protection. In turn, successfully using
visual stimuli to initiate these long-term, symbiotic nature-culture partnerships will depend on
42
whether, and to what extent, ecological and aesthetic values coincide in perceptible landscape
structure.
Fusing Ecology and Aesthetics via Landscape Ecology-Landscape Architecture
Collaborations
Auspiciously, in the open expanses of the farmed countryside, surface manifestations of cultural
and ecological systems are often perceptually clear. Certainly, the structural evolution from
traditional to modern agricultural landscapes unveils potentially useful relationships between
ecology and aesthetics. Not only do visible changes in landscape composition and pattern
directly convey tradeoffs between regulating and provisioning services, but also tradeoffs in
cultural services, particularly unintended damage to aesthetic character. The visual structure of
traditional farming landscapes — both reminiscent and exemplary of our pastoral aesthetic —
presents an analogue for creative and intentional restructuring of modern agricultural mosaics.
The challenge is to play forward attributes both ecologically and aesthetically meaningful while
neither compromising future food and fiber needs nor pining nostalgically for a by-gone era.
Landscape ecology and landscape architecture share a primary concern for the holistic
character and emergent properties of landscapes. Positioning these two disciplines as equal and
complementary partners in exploring, "What could sustainable agricultural landscapes look
like?", unlocks new opportunities for linking ecology and aesthetics in synergistic, visually
coincident, and mutually reinforcing relationships (Figure 3). By emphasizing a spatial scale that
humans perceive, and in which we consistently interact, landscape ecological research positions
ecological structure and function within the realm of human experience (Thorne and Huang
1991; Forman 1995; Nassauer 1995; Gobster et al. 2007). Communication between these two
disciplines may be facilitated with Forman's (1995) landscape mosaic concept and patch-
43
corridor-matrix model. Particularly within agricultural landscapes, both natural and cultural
elements can be readily distinguished and classified according to this typology.
Relative to enhancing the performance of appearance, the practice of design within
landscape architecture is inherently sensitive to visual quality and place-based cultural
dimensions of landscapes (Bell 2004; Murphy 2005; Simonds and Stark 2006). To connect
landscape structure with human aesthetic experience, design applies formal artistic principles but
also landscape aesthetic/preference theory and research that help explain pleasurable responses
to particular visual attributes (Dee 2001; Bell 2004; Parsons and Daniel 2002; Meyer 2008).
Propitiously, agricultural landscapes possess inherent characteristics indicative of several
preferential attributes associated with established theory; creatively and intentionally integrating
permanent vegetation buffers can potentially enhance existing attributes, and contribute
additional, preferred qualities (Table 1). Thus, the imperative for effectively configuring
landscape-scale vegetation buffers to enhance ecosystem services offers a ready canvas for
bridging known ecological structure-function relationships with aesthetic/preference theory
underlying pleasurable human experience.
DESIGNING BUFFERS TO SUSTAIN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES
Recently, Lovell and Sullivan (2006) indicated that lack of direct concern for design, aesthetic
quality, and visual preference is an important obstacle to widespread adoption of conservation
buffers in US agroecosystems. Aesthetic quality is rarely considered a primary conservation
objective with its own merit, but is frequently presumed an ancillary benefit that automatically
accrues from incorporating buffers into an otherwise homogeneous agricultural mosaic. Yet,
little thought or credence has been given to how or why this assumption might be true — other
than the obvious increase in visual interest. By elevating visual quality to a status equal to
44
ecological function, LE-LA collaborations can pragmatically explore the coincidence of ecology
and aesthetics in structural alternatives toward more sustainable agricultural landscapes.
Disproportionality, Ecological Targeting, and Sense of Place in Buffer Design
From a landscape ecological perspective, individual patches of farms, fields, and natural
vegetation are inherently linked by hierarchical and reciprocal relationships to the agricultural
mosaic as functional and spatial components. When assessing collective off-site effects for
landscape-scale buffer system placement, not all farms will contribute equally to negative
impacts on environmental quality or to positive influences on ecosystem services. This
phenomenon, termed disproportionality, reflects variations in spatial location and biophysical
setting of farms and conservation behavior of farmers (Nowak and Pierce 2007; Walter et al.
2007). Maximizing public benefits while minimizing monetary investments can be realized by
targeting buffers and encouraging and compensating buffer adoption and maintenance in
landscape settings of high sensitivity and critical ecological function (Groffman et al. 2007;
Maresch, Walbridge, and Kugler 2008; Scherr and McNeely 2008).
Collaboratively, from a landscape design perspective, buffer system integration into an
agricultural mosaic must be examined through a lens of human experience. This lens will allow
the design process to refine form, space, pattern, and movement associated with ecological
function by adapting and accentuating visual properties conducive to pleasurable aesthetic
experiences and landscape preference (Table 1). Novelty of unfamiliar landscape elements and
patterns can enhance the performance of appearance by heightening pleasure, drawing curiosity,
and stimulating intellect. But, new landscape designs must simultaneously be responsive to
place-based meanings, forms, and objectives. By adding buffers as "new layers of form and
meaning that integrate or juxtapose older layers" (Dee 2001), the appearance of sustainable
45
agricultural landscapes will evolve, rather than depart, from the existing and familiar (Nassauer
1992; Mozingo 1997; Meyer 2008). Accordingly, attentiveness to sense of place will result in a
range of effectual spatial configurations and relationships, rather than one optimal or universally
applicable design (Thayer 1989; Arler 2000; Scherr and McNeely 2008; Musacchio 2009).
Buffer Qualities that Transcend Boundaries of Place
From both ecological and aesthetic perspectives, however, certain visually perceptible emergent
landscape attributes can potentially transcend the cultural and biophysical boundaries of place. In
nature, non-random patterns of vegetation are surface manifestations of consistent, underlying
ecological processes (Laurie 1975; Forman 1995; Bell 2004) and universally beneficial as
system-stabilizing, recycling and regulating feedback mechanisms. Emulating natural patterns in
buffer design to protect/enhance water quality, for example, will consistently target topographic
lowlands and form corridors parallel to broad valley streams, side tributaries, and ephemeral
channels (natural or constructed). Combined with local expertise and farmer collaborations,
further modeling and analyses can prioritize locations and suggest initial buffer structure (size,
shape, configuration, and species composition) for optimizing ecological effectiveness, economic
efficiency, and agricultural productivity.
Correspondingly, aesthetically relevant visual qualities (Table 1) are not arbitrary but
based on long-held cultural traditions (such as the pastoral aesthetic) and decades of empirical,
landscape perception research (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Nassauer 1992; 1995; Appleton 1996;
Mozingo 1997; Dee 2001). Significant agreement across cultures and regions has established
biologically-based theories explaining aesthetic preference as (at least partially) a deeply
entrenched, cognitive and emotional response linked to early human survival behavior (Kaplan
and Kaplan 1989; Heerwagon and Orians 1993; Appleton 1996; Parsons and Daniel 2002; Falk
46
and Balling 2010). For example, vegetation buffers can enhance visual qualities associated with
preference for landscape naturalness via their permanence, ecologically appropriate location, and
species compositions inclusive of trees and shrub (Table 1; Figure 4).
Coincident Ecological and Aesthetic Values in Visually Perceptible Landscape Structure
Through recurrence in similar topographic positions and reiteration in composition,
configuration, and spatial relationships, buffers can provide visual congruence, security, and
understanding that enhance landscape legibility and coherence (Mozingo 1997; Kaplan, Kaplan,
and Ryan 1998; Dee 2001) (Table 1). For example, ecologically relevant buffer geometry (such
as adjacency, shape, width, curvilinearity, gap interval) can be consistently replicated and scaled
proportionately to stream size, ecological sensitivity, adjacent field management, and upslope
contributing area. From a culturally selective palette of native, naturalized, and non-aggressive
ornamental species, buffer composition can be matched to, and repeated in, landscape positions
of suitable slope, soil, aspect, and hydrology. Management techniques that maintain sharp, neatly
manicured edges can be employed and encouraged (Figure 4).
Integrating permanent vegetation buffers into an otherwise tedious agricultural matrix can
create a satisfying measure of structural complexity that arouses interest, heightens pleasure, and
entices visual and physical exploration. Our eyes are drawn to visually perceptible textural,
vertical, or color contrasts that define boundaries between landscape elements. The vividness of
these contrasts can be accentuated by experimenting with various plant species, forms, and
compositions. In more complex topography, buffers may disappear over a ridge, into a hollow, or
beyond the horizon to create landscape intrigue and mystery that dare discovery, lure
imagination, and encourage engagement (Table 1; Figure 4).
47
As contrasting corridors and patches within the openness and extent of agricultural
landscapes, buffers will also accentuate savanna-like properties, water elements, and prospect-
refuge opportunities (Table 1). Often public roads and trails crisscross these landscapes and are
easily accessed by foot, bicycle, or vehicle. Design can invite, direct, and enhance visual and
physical movement by converging access and pathway with sheltered, exemplary viewpoints
(Mozingo 1997; Dee 2001; Simonds and Starke 2006). Expansive vistas facilitate understanding
of flow, direction, and continuity as we visually link similar elements, follow well-kept corridor
edges, and recognize rhythms of alternating land use (Thorne and Huang 1991; Bell 2004).
Ecologically, vegetation buffer systems trap sediment, stabilize streambanks, filter water runoff,
provide pollination and pest control, create landscape diversity and connectivity, and introduce
wildlife habitat and movement corridors (Forman 1995; Bentrup 2008) (Figure 4).
In contrast to a form-follows-function philosophy, this collaborative landscape ecology-
design strategy illustrates how ecology and aesthetics can be fused so that neither overpowers the
other. Ultimately, a unity should emerge between form and function that embraces human
experience and conveys as much about the landscape's cultural performance as its ecological
performance (Mozingo 1997; Bell 2004; Meyer 2008). Our pastoral aesthetic can come alive as
stewardship and visual expectations are realized — care and hard work sustain ecological
function and farm productivity; the landscape displays pleasing neatness, contrasts, and
peacefulness. Whereas ecological awareness is unnecessary for experiencing aesthetic pleasure
here, visual cues communicate ecological function because the experience and the function
coincide in the emergent visual and structural attributes. In concert with the sustained attention
and care this landscape mosaic is likely to attract, a pluralistic consciousness of ecological-
aesthetic meanings and values can develop.
48
CONCLUSION
Helping solve agriculture's sustainability issues is timely and socially relevant with potentially
profound, far-reaching, beneficial impacts. Agricultural sustainability and conservation efforts
have focused on field- and farm-scales that emphasize improving ecological services and
functions in support of production. Interest is increasing, however, for understanding how
landscape-scale conservation buffer systems might complement these smaller-scale efforts and
accelerate landscape sustainability. This development presents extraordinary opportunities for
integrating ecological and cultural dimensions of landscape sustainability through landscape
ecology-landscape architecture collaborations.
To inspire the care and effort essential for creating and maintaining sustainable
agricultural landscapes, greater attention must be given to how humans perceive, experience, and
appreciate visual landscape qualities. Inherent characteristics, visual expectations, emotional
attachments, and cultural meanings associated with our enduring pastoral aesthetic offer a
springboard for exploring mosaic restructuring inclusive of vegetation buffer systems. Bridging
disciplinary theory, landscape ecology-landscape architecture partnerships can refine structure
associated with improved ecological function by deliberately integrating and accentuating visual
qualities known to evoke pleasurable experiences and influence landscape preference.
The strength of this bridge rests on understanding overall landscape performance in terms
of emergent visual, structural, and functional properties. By identifying properties that transcend
uniqueness of place, we may uncover qualities iconic of sustainable agricultural landscapes.
49
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I sincerely thank Shira Broschat, Chien-fei Chen, Patricia Ericsson, William Hendrix, Jolie
Kaytes, Charles Litzinger, Virginia Lohr, Laura Musacchio, James Palmer, John Reganold,
Rodney Sayler, John Schneider, Jiango Wu and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
50
REFERENCES
Ahern, Jack. 2005. Integration of landscape ecology and landscape architecture: An evolutionary
and reciprocal process. In Issues and Perspectives in Landscape Ecology, ed. John Wiens
and Michael Moss, 307-315. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Appleton, Jay. 1996. The Experience of Landscape. 2nd ed. West Sussex, England: John Wiley
and Sons.
Altieri, Miguel. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture,

Ecosystems & Environment 74 (1): 19-31.
Antrop, Marc. 2000. Background concepts for integrate landscape analysis. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 77: 17-28.
Arler, Finn. 2000. Aspects of landscape or nature quality. Landscape Ecology 15: 291-302.
Balling, John, and John Falk. 1982. Development of visual preference for natural environments.
Environment and Behavior 14 (1): 5-28.
Barrett, Terry, Almo Farina, and Gary Barrett. 2009. Aesthetic landscapes: An emergent
component in sustaining societies. Landscape Ecology 24: 1029-1035.
Bell, Simon. 2004. Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. 2nd ed. London: Spon Press.
Bennett, Andrew, James Radford, and Angie Haslem. 2006. Properties of land mosaics:
Implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biological
Conservation 133 (2): 250-264.
Bentrup, Gary. 2008. Conservation Buffers: Design Guidelines for Buffers, Corridors, and
Greenways. GTR SRS-109, USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station,
Asheville, NC.
Blaschke, Thomas. 2006. The role of spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable
landscapes and natural capital. Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (3-4): 198-226.
Brady, Emily. 2006. The Aesthetics of agricultural landscapes and the relationship between
humans and nature. Ethics, Place and Environment 9 (1): 1-19.
Burel, Francoise, and Jacques Baudry. 1995. Social, aesthetic, and ecological aspects of
hedgerows in rural landscapes as a framework for greenways. Landscape and Urban
Planning 33 (1): 327-340.
Carlson, Allen. 1985. On appreciating agricultural landscapes. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism 43 (3): 301-312.
51
Carpenter, Stephen, Harold Mooney, John Agard, Doris Capistrano, Ruth DeFries, Sandra Diaz,
Thomas Dietz, Anantha Duraiappah, Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, Henrique Pereira, Charles
Perrings, Walter Reid, José Sarukhan, Robert Scholes, and Anne Whyte. 2009. Science
for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (5): 1305-1312.
Chappell, Michael, and Liliana LaValle. 2011. Food security and biodiversity: Can we have
both? An agroecological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 3-26.
Daily, Gretchen. 1997. Introduction: What are ecosystem services? In Nature's Services: Societal
Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, ed. Gretchen Daily, 1-10. Washington DC: Island
Press.
Décamps, Henri. 2001. How a riparian landscape finds form and comes alive. Landscape and
Urban Planning 57 (3-4): 169-175.
Dee, Catherine. 2001. Form and Fabric in Landscape Architecture. London: Spon Press.
Dramstad, Wenche, James Olson, and Richard Forman. 1996. Landscape Ecology Principles in
Landscape Architecture and Land-Use Planning. Washington DC: Island Press.
Dubos, René. 1976. Symbiosis between the Earth and humankind. Science 193: 459-462.
Egoz, Shelley, Jacky Bowring, and Harvey Perkins 2001. Tastes in tension: Form, function, and
meaning in New Zealand’s farmed landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57 (3-4):
177-196.
Falk, John, and John Balling. 2010. Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference.
Environment and Behavior 42 (4): 479-493.
Fischer, Joern, Berry Brosi, Gretchen Daily, Paul Ehrlich, Rebecca Goldman, Joshua Goldstein,
David Lindenmayer, Adrian Manning, Harold Mooney, Liba Pejchar, Jai Ranganathan,
and Heather Tallis. 2008. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-
friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6 (7): 380–385.
Forman, Richard. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, James. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Glover, Jerry, John Reganold, Lindsay Bell, Justin Borevitz, Charles Brummer, Edward Buckler,
Cindy Cox, T. Stan Cox, Tim Crews, Steve Culman, Lee DeHaan, Dennis Eriksson,
Bikram Gill, James Holland, Fengyi Hu, Brent Hulke, Amir Ibrahim, Wes Jackson,
Stephen Jones, Seth Murray, Andrew Paterson, Edmundo Ploschuk, Eric Sacks, Sieglinde
52
Snapp, Dayun Tao, David Van Tassel, Len Wade, Don Wyse, and Yunbi Xu. 2010.
Increased food and ecosystem security via perennial grains. Science 328: 1638-1639.
Gobster, Paul, Joan Nassauer, Terry Daniel, and Gary Fry. 2007. The shared landscape: What
does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22: 959-972.
Godfrey, H. Charles, Jules Pretty, Sandy Thomas, Elizabeth Warham, and John Beddington.
2011. Linking policy on climate and food. Science 331: 1013-1014.
Green, Rhys, Stephen Cornell, Jörn Scharlemann, and Andrew Balmford. 2005. Farming and the
fate of wild nature. Science 307: 550-555.
Groffman, Peter, Paul Capel, Kurt Riitters, and Wanhong Yang. 2007. Ecosystem services in
agricultural landscapes. In Managing Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental
Quality: Strengthening the Science Base, ed. Max Schnepf and Craig Cox, 3-16. Ankeny,
IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Heerwagen, Judith, and Gordon Orians. 1993. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In The Biophilia
Hypothesis, ed. Stephen Kellert and Edward Wilson, 138-172. Washington DC: Island
Press.
Hobbs, Richard. 1997. Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape and
Urban Planning 37 (1-2): 1-9.
Haines-Young, Roy. 2000. Sustainable development and sustainable landscapes: Defining a new
paradigm for landscape ecology. Fennia 178 (1): 7-14.
Jorgensen, Anna. 2011. Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aesthetics research.
Landscape and Urban Planning 100 (4): 353-355.
Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, Rachel, Stephen, Kaplan, and Robert Ryan. 1998. With People in Mind: Design and
Management of Everyday Nature. Washington DC: Island Press.
Kareiva, Peter, Sean Watts, Robert McDonald, and Tim Boucher. 2007. Domesticated nature:
Shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316: 1866-1869.
Kellert, Stephen, and Edward Wilson, ed. 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington DC:
Island Press.
Kinzig, Ann. 2009. Ecosystem services. In The Princeton Guide to Ecology, ed. Simon Levin,
573-578. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53
Laurie, Ian. 1975. Aesthetic factors in visual evaluation. In Landscape Assessment: Values,
Perceptions, and Resources, ed. Ervin Zube, Robert Brush, and Julius Fabos, 102-117.
Stroudsburg, PA : Dowden, Hutchinson, Ross, Inc.
Leopold, Aldo. 1966. A Sand County Almanac with Essays on Conservation from Round River.
New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. and Ballantine Books.
Linehan, John, and Meir Gross. 1998. Back to the future, back to basics: The social ecology of
landscapes and the future of landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (2-
4): 207-223.
Lohr, Virginia, and Caroline Pearson-Mims. 2006. Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded,
and conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior 38 (5): 667-688.
Lowrance, Richard, and Susan Crow SR 2002. Implementation of riparian buffer systems for
landscape management. In Landscape Ecology in Agroecosystems Management, ed. Lech
Ryszkowski, 145-157. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Lovell, Sarah Taylor, and Douglas Johnston. 2009a. Creating multifunctional landscapes: How
can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape? Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 7 (4): 212-220.
Lovell, Sarah Taylor, and Douglas Johnston. 2009b. Designing landscapes for performance
based on emerging principles in landscape ecology. Ecology and Society 14 (1): 44
(online).
Lovell, Sarah Taylor, and William Sullivan. 2006. Environmental benefits of conservation
buffers in the United States: Evidence, promise, and open questions. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 112 (4): 249-260.
Lowenthal, David. 2007. Living with and looking at the landscape. Landscape Research 32 (5):
635-656.
Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maresch, Wayne, Mark Walbridge, and Daniel Kugler. 2008. Enhancing conservation on
agricultural landscapes: A new direction for the Conservation Effects Assessment
Project. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63 (6): 198A-203A.
Marx, Leo. 1964. The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America.
New York: Oxford University Press.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:

Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press.
54
Merchant, Carolyn. 2003. Reinventing Eden: The Fate of Nature in Western Culture. New York:
Routledge.
Meyer, Elizabeth. 2008. Sustaining beauty. The performance of appearance: A manifesto in three
parts. Journal of Landscape Architecture 3 (1): 6-23.
Miller, James, and Richard Hobbs. 2002. Conservation where people live and work.
Conservation Biology 16 (2): 330-337.
Mozingo, Louise. 1997. The aesthetics of ecological design: Seeing science as culture.
Landscape Journal 16 (1): 46-59.
Murphy, Michael. 2005. Landscape Architecture Theory: An Evolving Body of Thought. Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Musacchio, Laura. 2009. The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability.
Landscape Ecology 24: 993-1013.
Musacchio, Laura. 2011. The grand challenge to operationalize landscape sustainability and the
design-in-science paradigm. Landscape Ecology 26: 1-5.
Nassauer, Joan Iverson. 1989. Agricultural policy and aesthetic objectives. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 44 (5): 384-387.
Nassauer, Joan Iverson. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy
Landscape Ecology 6 (4): 239-250.
Nassauer, Joan Iverson. 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10
(4): 229-237.
Nassauer, Joan Iverson. 1997. Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. In
Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology, ed. Joan Iverson Nassauer, 65-83.
Washington DC: Island Press.
Nassauer, Joan Iverson. 2011. Care and stewardship: From home to planet. Landscape and
Urban Planning 100 (4): 321-323.
Nassauer, Joan Iverson, and Paul Opdam. 2008. Design in science: Extending the landscape
ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology 23 (6): 633-644.
Naveh, Zev. 2000. What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landscape
and Urban Planning 50 (1-3): 7-26.
Nowak, Peter, and Francis Pierce. 2007. The disproportionality conundrum. In Managing
Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality: Strengthening the Science Base, ed.
55
Max Schnepf and Craig Cox, 104-111. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation
Society.
NRC (National Research Council). 2010. Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st
Century. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
Orians, Gordon. 1986. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In

Landscape Meanings and Values, ed. Edmund Penning-Rowsell and David Lowenthal, 3-
25. London: Allen and Unwin.
Parsons, Russ, and Terry Daniel. 2002. Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics.
Landscape and Urban Planning 60 (1): 43-56.
Pimentel, David, Ulrich Stackow, David Takacs, Hans Brubaker, Amy Dumas, John Meaney,
John O'Neil, Douglas Onsi, and David Corzilius. 1992. Conserving biological diversity in
agricultural/forestry systems. BioScience 42 (5): 354-362.
Pimentel, David, Paul Hepperly , James Hanson, David Douds, and Rita Seidel. 2005.
Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional
framing systems. Bioscience 55 (7): 573-582.
Potschin, Marion, and Roy Haines-Young. 2006. Landscapes and sustainability. Landscape and
Urban Planning 75 (3-4): 155-161.
Pretty, Jules. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 363 (1491): 447-465.
Purcell, A. Terrence, and Richard Lamb. 1998. Preference and naturalness: An ecological
approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1): 57-66.
Reganold, John, Robert Papendick, and James Parr. 1990. Sustainable agriculture. Scientific
American 262 (6): 112-120.
Reganold, John, Douglas Jackson-Smith, Sandra Batie, Richard Harwood, Julia Kornegay, Dale
Bucks, Cornelia Flora, James Hanson, William Jury, Deanne Meyer, August Schumacher
Jr., Henning Sehmsdorf, Carol Shennan, Ann Thrupp, and Paul Willis. 2011.
Transforming US agriculture. Science 332 (6030): 670-671.
Ryszkowski, Lech. 2002. Agriculture and landscape ecology. In Landscape Ecology in

Agroecosystems Management, ed. Lech Ryszkowski, 341-348. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Ryszkowski, Lech, and Janusz Jankowiak. 2002. Development of agriculture and its impact on
landscape functions. In Landscape Ecology in Agroecosystems Management, ed. Lech
Ryszkowski, 9-27. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
56
Schauman, Sally. 2007. The garden and the red barn: The pervasive pastoral and its
environmental consequences. In The Aesthetics of Human Environments, ed. Arnold
Berleant and Allen Carlson, 219-233. Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press.
Scherr, Sara, and Jeffrey McNeely. 2008. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural
sustainability: Towards a new paradigm of 'ecoagriculture' landscapes. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 363 (1491): 477-494.
Simonds, John, and Barry Starke. 2006. Landscape Architecture. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Stokes, Samuel, A. Elizabeth Watson, and Shelley Mastran. 1997. Saving America’s Countryside:
A Guide to Rural Conservation. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sutton, Richard. 1999. Ethics and aesthetics in the loss of farmland. In Under the Blade: The
Conversion of Agricultural Landscapes, ed. Richard Olson and Thomas Lyson, 217-246.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Termorshuizen, Jolande, and Paul Opdam. 2009. Landscape services as a bridge between
landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology 24: 1037-1052.
Thayer Jr., Robert. 1989. The experience of sustainable landscapes. Landscape Journal 8 (2):
101-110.
The Royal Society. 2009. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of
Global Agriculture. London: The Royal Society.
Thorne, James, and Chang-Shan Huang. 1991. Toward a landscape ecological aesthetic:
Methodologies for designers and planners. Landscape and Urban Planning 21 (1-2): 61-
79.
Tilman, David, Kenneth Cassman, Pamela Matson, Rosamond Naylor, and Stephen Polasky.
2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-
677.
Tress, Bärbel, Gunther Tress, and Gary Fry. 2005. Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy
expectations and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 70 (1-2): 177-191.
Trewavas, Anthony. 2001. The population/biodiversity paradox. Agricultural efficiency to save

wilderness. Plant Physiology 125 (1): 174-179.
Trewavas, Anthony. 2004. A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with

particular respect to the UK and the potential environmental benefits of no-till
agriculture. Crop Protection 23 (9): 757-781.
57
Tscharntke, Teja, Alexandra Klein, Andreas Kruess, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, and Carsten Thies.
2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity —
ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters 8 (8): 857-874.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Ulrich, Roger. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224
(4647): 420-421.
Vitousek, Peter, Harold Mooney, Jane Lubchenco, and Jerry Melillo. (1997) Human domination
of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277 (5325): 494-499.
Walter, Todd, Mike Dosskey, Madhu Khanna, Jim Miller, Mark Tomer, and John Wiens. 2007.
The science of targeting within landscapes and watersheds to improve conservation
effectiveness. In Managing Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality:
Strengthening the Science Base, ed. Max Schnepf and Craig Cox, 63-89. Ankeny, IA:
Soil and Water Conservation Society.
Welchman, Jennifer. 1999. The virtues of stewardship. Environmental Ethics 21 (4): 411-423.
Woodward, Joan. 2000. Waterstained Landscapes: Seeing and Shaping Regionally Distinctive
Places. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wu, Jianguo. 2006. Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability science.

Landscape Ecology 21: 1-4.
Wu, Jianguo. 2010. Landscape of culture and culture of landscape: Does landscape ecology need
culture? Landscape Ecology 25: 1147-1150.
58
Table 1. Cultural significance of landscape attributes relative to aesthetic preference, supporting theory/literature, and potential for
attributes to be perceived in existing modern agricultural landscapes compared to alternatives designed as more sustainable mosaics
inclusive of conservation buffers systems.
Attribute Potential in
Agricultural Landscapes
Landscape Association, Meaning, or Value Relative to Aesthetic Supporting With
Attribute Appeal/Preference Theory/Literature Existing or Buffer
Inherent System
Novel yet Novel, unusual, or unexpected element, form, or pattern Nassauer 1989, 1995;
Familiar
can enhance vividness, communicate new information, Mozingo 1997; Dee 2001; Low High
and arouse a compelling and heightened sense of pleasure. Bell 2004; Murphy 2005;
But, novelty must be carefully introduced as a congruent Meyer 2008
extension or layer within the existing, and familiar,

59
biophysical and cultural context.
Naturalness Views, experience, and accessibility of natural or semi- Ulrich 1984; Kaplan and
natural landscapes or urban/suburban green spaces have Kaplan 1989; Biophilia Low - Med High
restorative health benefits and are valuable indicators of Hypothesis (Kellert and
place satisfaction, quality of life, emotional and physical Wilson 1993); Stokes et
well-being; human affinity for nature is thought an innate al. 1997; Kaplan et al.
rather than acquired trait; green vegetation, particularly 1998; Purcell and Lamb
trees/shrubs, is generally associated with naturalness. 1998; Arler 2000

Table 1. Continued
Inherent System
Accessibility/ Amenable to explore or imagine living in the landscape; Legibility Theory (Lynch Low Low - High
Locomotion
perceived ease of traveling through the terrain or pursuing 1960); Nassauer 1989; (context
outdoor recreational experiences (hunting, fishing, Kaplan, Kaplan, and Ryan dependent)
wildlife viewing, hiking, biking, scenic driving). 1998; Antrop 2000
Topographic Mountains or hills interspersed within the scene or viewed Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Low-High Low-High
60
variation
in the distance more appealing than uniform, flat terrain; Purcell and Lamb 1994, (context (context
provides sense of depth, visual interest and stimulation. 1998; Kaplan et al. 1998 dependent) dependent)
Sheltered Beneficial for early survival by providing shelter from Prospect-Refuge Theory
Viewpoints
inclement weather and ability to see without being seen, (Appleton 1996); Purcell Low High
inspect surroundings, hunt prey, avoid predators or other and Lamb 1998; Antrop
harm, and orient from a hilltop, overlook, or wooded 2000
edge.
Related terms: prospect-refuge

Table 1. Continued
Inherent System
Presence/ Habitat component necessary for survival/reproduction; Affordance Theory
Indication of
Water helps explain prevalence of settlements and higher (Gibson 1979); Habitat Low-Med Med-High
property values near water or with water views; flowing Theory (Appleton 1996);
water preferred over stagnant; includes indications of Purcell and Lamb 1998;
water/wetness, e.g., ribbons or patches of green vegetation Woodward 2000
in contrast with surrounding colors or textures

61
Savanna- Open or semi-open expanse, grass-like ground cover, Savanna Hypothesis Low-Med High
Like
isolated or clumped canopy trees and shrubs, indication of (Balling and Falk 1982;
water; enhances visibility, understanding, comfort, safety, Falk and Balling 2010;
Orians 1986; Heerwagen

security; presents a complex yet congruent scene;
and Orians 1993); Habitat
resembles the African savanna, an environment important
Theory (Appleton 1996);
to early human evolution.
Parsons and Daniel 2002;
Related terms: savanna, park-like
Lohr and Pearson-Mims
2006
Table 1. Continued
Inherent System
Legibility Distinctive elements/configurations provide information Legibility Theory (Lynch
for navigating or orienting; confidence in way-finding 1960); Information Low-Med Med-High
encourages engagement/exploration by feelings of Processing Theory (context (context
personal safety and freedom from fear of becoming lost. (Kaplan and Kaplan dependent) dependent)
Related terms: security, readability, way-finding 1989); Kaplan, Kaplan,
and Ryan 1998; Dee 2001;

62
Murphy 2005
Coherence* Orderly arrangement of landscape elements into a Information Processing Low High
pleasing pattern of cohesive and mutually reinforcing Theory (Kaplan and
forms, elements, and relationships; observer easily Kaplan 1989); Antrop
understands and acquires information from the landscape 2000; Dee 2001; Murphy
as a unified, congruent whole. 2005
Related terms: harmony, unity, clarity, order

Table 1. Continued
Inherent System
Complexity* Richness in type and arrangement of forms and elements; Information Processing
arouses interest, heightens experience, and encourages Theory (Kaplan and Low Med - High
further exploration and engagement. Kaplan 1989); Antrop
Related terms: variety, diversity 2000; Dee 2001; Murphy
2005
Mystery Composition or configuration of elements that intrigues Information Processing Low Med -High
63
and suggests there is more to see by moving through the Theory ( Kaplan and
landscape; piques curiosity and encourages engagement. Kaplan 1989); Kaplan,
Kaplan, and Ryan 1998;
Dee 2001
*High complexity without coherence may be perceived as chaotic, disorienting, and unattractive; too much order without diversity
becomes rigid, monotonous, and uninteresting (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Kaplan, Kaplan, and Ryan 1998; Antrop 2000; Murphy
2005). Design achieves high visual aesthetic quality by balancing complexity with coherence, expressed in Dee's (2001) unity with
diversity concept.
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Perceived tradeoffs (A) or complete incompatibility (B) between aesthetic appeal
and ecological function in visible landscape structure; Leopold's (1966) land aesthetic and
the form-follows-function philosophy (see Bell 2004, 13) (C) supports the normative
ecological aesthetic concept and the foundation of ecological design, that is, ecological health
begets beauty.
Figure 2. Artistic portrayals of rural landscape scenes that perpetuate cultural meanings and
visual expectations embedded within our pastoral aesthetic (Scenes A and D © Charlene Celio,
artist, with permission; Scenes B and C © Nancy Merkle, artist, with permission).
Figure 3. Possibilities for ecological function and aesthetic appeal to coincide in the appearance
of sustainable agricultural landscapes. Increasing circle sizes denotes potential synergistic or
mutually reinforcing relationships; that is, aesthetic appeal increases with increasing ecological
function or vice versa, if both are communicated or perceived in the same visual structure.
Figure 4. Conceptualization of an intensively managed, small-grain agricultural landscape before
(A) and after configuring conservation buffers to simultaneously enhance ecological function
and aesthetic experience (B, C). The existing mosaic (A) displays little diversity and nearly all
natural vegetation along the stream, drainage pathways, and steep slopes has been removed to
maximize production. Erosion risk is high and water quality is compromised; the quality of
aesthetic preference attributes such as naturalness, complexity, legibility, and coherence is low.
Alternative mosaics display moderate (B) and high (C) capacity to improve ecological function
and aesthetic experience. Buffers along the stream, drainage pathways, and hilltops stabilize
soils, trap sediment, and slow water runoff. Ecologically, soil is retained, biodiversity is
enhanced, water quality is improved, and wildlife habitat is created. Aesthetically, orderly array
64
and repetition of buffer locations, compositions, and configurations increase legibility and
coherence. Contrast and diversity in color, texture, shape, and pattern of natural and cultural
elements add complexity, enticing visual exploration. Imagination is stirred by the mystery
beyond the hills; the road beckons physical movement (© Andy Sewell, artist, with permission).
65
Figure 1.
Aesthetic
Appeal
Ecological Aesthetic
Function Apppeal
Ecological
Function
A B
Ecological Ecological Landscape

Stability Integrity Beauty
66
Figure 2.
C
B
67
Figure 3.
Aesthetic
Aesthetic Appeal
Aesthetic Ecological Aesthetic Ecological Appeal Ecological
Function Appeal Function Ecological
Appeal Function
Function
 Increasing structural coincidence of ecological function and aesthetic appeal.

 Improving ecological function and aesthetic appeal.
 Evolution from existing to more sustainable agricultural landscape structure.
68
Figure 4.
A
69
CHAPTER FOUR
LINKING ECOLOGY AND AESTHETICS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES: A
CASE STUDY FROM THE PALOUSE REGION OF WASHINGTON STATE, U.S.A.
Linda R. Klein  William G. Hendrix  Jolie B. Kaytes
Virginia I. Lohr  Rodney D. Sayler  Mark E. Swanson
(to be submitted to Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment)
L. R. Klein (Corresponding author)
LRK Research & Editing
440 SE Hill Street, Pullman, WA 99163 U.S.A.
email: linda.klein@email.wsu.edu
phone: 509-339-3529
W. G. Hendrix  J. B. Kaytes
School of Design and Construction
Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2220 U.S.A.
V. I. Lohr
Department of Horticulture
R. D. Sayler  M. E. Swanson
School of the Environment - College of Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences
70
Abstract
Inspired by international escalations in agricultural sustainability and food security debates, we
explore the promise of landscape-scale conservation buffer systems to help mitigate agriculture's
negative environmental impacts. Although the ecological benefits of establishing permanent
vegetation buffers as a conservation strategy are well-known and conceptually popularized, in
practice, widespread adoption is limited. Consequently, we also investigate the assertion that
human aesthetic response to landscapes might be used as a catalyst for inspiring conservation
behavior toward sustainability goals. Aesthetic experiences capable of motivating conservation
behavior in agricultural settings, however, will likely depend on the degree to which visually
perceptible landscape attributes communicate both ecological function and aesthetic quality.
Within the Palouse farming region of Washington State, U.S.A., our interdisciplinary research
approach asks about the capacity of landscape-scale buffer systems to improve both ecological
function and aesthetic experience. Methods integrate geographic information system technology,
soil erosion modeling, digital image simulation, and a landscape preference survey to understand
how successive additions of buffer elements simultaneously influence ecological function and
aesthetic experience. Results reveal a statistically significant, positive relationship between
landscape preference and landscape structure indicative of improved ecological function. We
also strongly suggest that the visually perceptible structural attributes of agricultural landscapes
can provide an accurate and coincident indication of both ecological function and aesthetic
quality. Results are further discussed within the local context of Whitman County, Washington
and relative to broader implications for agricultural landscape sustainability and future research.
Key Words: aesthetic quality, agricultural landscape ecology, conservation buffers, ecosystem
services, GeoWEPP erosion modeling, landscape preference
71
1. Introduction
Ongoing environmental concerns, world population projections of nine billion by 2050,
and recognition that most productive cropland is already in use have ignited renewed vigor in
agricultural sustainability and food security debates (see Montgomery 2007; Pretty 2008; The
Royal Society 2009; Glover et al. 2010; NRC 2010; Chappell and LaValle 2011; Godfrey et al.
2011; Reganold et al. 2011). Considerable and often polarizing discussion has ensued regarding
the merits (and shortcomings) of conventional versus alternative forms of agriculture to ensure
future production while protecting biodiversity, natural resources, and ecosystem services (see
Trewavas 2001; 2004; Tilman et al. 2002; Pretty 2008; Scherr and McNeely 2008; Chapell and
LaValle 2011). But, reexamination of opposing arguments, including those establishing the
"land-sparing" versus "wildlife-friendly" farming dichotomy (see Green et al. 2005; Fischer et al.
2008), reveals noteworthy agreement on several widely applicable strategies, regardless of
agroecosystem type employed.
Garnering broad consensus, for example, is the idea that coordination of conservation
practices across multiple farms is necessary to realize significant reductions in off-site
environmental damage or improvements in landscape-scale ecosystem services (soil
regeneration, carbon sequestration, hydrologic cycle regulation) (Lowrance and Crow 2002;
Ryszkowski 2002; Tilman et al. 2002; Tscharntke et al. 2005; Maresch et al. 2008; Pretty 2008).
Gaining particular momentum, and supportive of the research described herein, is agreement on
the potential for landscape-scale vegetation buffers to complement farm-scale sustainability and
conservation efforts that improve infiltration, soil retention, and input efficiency (Ryszkowski
and Jankowiak 2002; Groffman et al. 2007; Walter et al. 2007; Bentrup 2008; Scherr and
McNeely 2008). In contrast to the small area upon which they are typically warranted, vegetation
72
buffers can deliver a disproportionately high amount of ecological function and beneficial
services (see review by Lovell and Sullivan 2006). Ironically, despite known ecological benefits,
wide promotion, and popularization, the establishment of permanent vegetation buffers is
voluntary and limited in practice. Recently, Lovell and Sullivan (2006) indicated that lack of
direct concern for design, aesthetic quality, and visual preference is an important obstacle to
widespread adoption of conservation buffers in US agroecosystems.
So far, resource conservation in agricultural settings has focused on enhancing ecosystem
services that directly support production, while consideration of cultural services (aesthetic,
spiritual, educational, and recreational amenities) has been missing, or secondary at best (MEA
2005; Scherr and McNeely 2008). This neglect is partly due to difficulty measuring the often
subjective and intangible character of these amenities (MEA 2005). Additionally, cultural
services are usually perceived, experienced, and appreciated at larger spatial scales and
traditionally associated with more pristine or minimally disturbed natural environments.
However, at spatial scales larger than a single farm, landscape restructuring strategies will likely
have a greater potential to more fully regard the cultural dimensions of sustainability and
ecosystem services (see Lovell and Johnston 2009; Musacchio 2009).
Concurrently, researchers from landscape disciplines with common interests in
sustainability have emphasized the complementarity and co-dependency of ecological
sustainability and cultural sustainability (Thayer 1989; Naveh 2000; Décamps 2001; Tress et al.
2005; Wu 2006; Barrett et al. 2009). That is, landscapes must sustain not only vital natural
resources, but also basic needs and quality of life for humans (Naveh 2000; Blaschke 2006;
Barrett et al. 2009). Practically, creating and maintaining these landscapes will require human
effort and care (Dubos 1976; Nassauer 1997; Décamps 2001; Merchant 2003; Meyer 2008).
73
Several researchers contend that motivating land-use behavior toward sustainability and
conservation goals may ultimately depend on understanding the underlying mechanisms
affecting human aesthetic response and attachment to landscapes (e.g., Mozingo 1997; Nassauer
1997; Linehan and Gross 1998; Parsons and Daniel 2002; Décamps 2001; Gobster et al. 2007;
Meyer 2008).
In environmental psychology, perception-based assessments generally interpret human
preference for a particular landscape as a measure of its aesthetic quality, which in turn, is
interpreted as having high visual aesthetic quality (Kaplan 1987; Nassauer 1995; Daniel 2001).
Human evolutionary history, biologically-based perception theory, and neurobiological evidence
tell us that our visual aesthetic preferences are not frivolous, capricious, or superficial. Rather,
aesthetic preferences result from inseparable perceptual, cognitive, and deep-rooted emotional
processes that inform decisions having personal or social consequence (Parsons and Daniel 2002;
Meyer 2008). In evolutionary terms, aesthetic preference is an innate expression of survival
behavior. For example, habitat and prospect-refuge theories (Appleton 1975) assert that,
throughout history, humans experienced aesthetic satisfaction by settling in landscapes with
features perceived capable of satisfying our early biological needs (e.g., food, water, shelter, and
safety). Human preference for park-like settings with open expanses of short grass with dispersed
clumps of trees and shrubs and an indication of water is often explained by the savanna
preference hypothesis (Falk and Balling 2010). That is, preference for landscapes that resemble
savanna-like settings is at least partially an innate reaction linked to early human evolutionary
adaptation for survival on the savannas of East Africa (Balling and Falk 1982; Heerwagen and
Orians 1993).
74
Information processing theory (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989) further explains that because
we have become evolutionarily adapted for survival by developing keen powers of perception
and deduction, human functioning depends on information, in particular, from visual stimuli. We
not only examine specific elements, but also the spatial arrangement, location, and movement of
those elements within the landscape. We use this information to guide, judge, and motivate our
behavior. An extensive body of empirical research supports this theory and strongly suggests that
preferred landscapes include perceptible biophysical attributes that embody coherence (orderly
arrangement or organization of landscape elements leads to understanding and security),
legibility (distinctive features increase one’s confidence in navigating through, or orienting
within, a landscape), complexity (diversity of landscape elements arouses interest and encourages
further exploration) and mystery (composition and/or configuration of elements suggests there is
more to discover if one keeps moving through the landscape) (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Kaplan
et al. 1998).
Much empirical, landscape preference/visual quality research has been completed across
a range of biophysical and cultural settings and for various purposes. One body of work in the
U.S.A. assesses the scenic quality of public lands (e.g., national forest land or rangeland) using
methods established through the USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (see
review in Tveit et al. 2006). Another body of work addresses the general satisfaction humans feel
when in contact with natural environments (e.g. Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). Many of these studies
have focused on psychological and/or physiological responses to ‘nature’ within the context of
stressful work, school, or home situations or densely-populated urban/residential environments
(e.g., Ulrich et al. 1991; Lohr et al. 1996; Lohr and Pearson-Mims 2006; Yabiku et al. 2008).
Related studies examine how the direct experience or views of trees, gardens, or natural scenes
75
lead to positive physiological and emotional responses within the context of institutional settings
(e.g., prisons, hospitals) (e.g., Moore 1981; Ulrich 1984; Verderber 1986; Mooney and Nicell
1992). Another line of landscape preference research tries to understand the biophysical and
sociocultural underpinnings of the emotional attachment to place and sense of identity (e.g.,
Beckley et al. 2007; Walker and Ryan 2008).
In contrast, a more limited body of work deals specifically with active farmland or
otherwise rural landscape settings. In Europe, recent studies have been concerned with public
visual preferences relative to nature conservation management on abandoned farmland (e.g., Van
den Berg and Koole 2006). Other studies have varying objectives that range from evaluating the
scenic value of farmland as a preservation strategy (Schauman 1988; Stokes et al. 1997), to
preference of buffer design for mitigating conflicts at the urban-rural fringe (Sullivan et al.
2004), to comparing perceptions of the visual quality of organically versus conventionally
managed agricultural systems (Egoz et al. 2001, 2006). Two studies (Palmer 2004; Dramstad et
al. 2006) evaluated the relationship between map-based metrics, used to define landscape
ecological structure, and visual preferences for coinciding photographic perspectives. Both
studies attempted to understand whether landscape metrics could be used to predict variations in
landscape preferences. If so, landscape metric analysis could provide an efficient way to include
aesthetic information in monitoring the social impacts of land-use change (Dramstad et al. 2006)
or in planning future community development (Palmer 2004).
Landscape aesthetic experiences and/or landscape preferences are in response to
perceivable attributes; however, a landscape judged as having high visual aesthetic quality may
or may not correspond with high ecological quality (Daniel 2001; Gobster et al. 2007). We assert
that the potential for landscape aesthetic experiences to inspire conservation behavior in modern-
76
day agricultural landscapes will depend on whether ecological function and aesthetic appeal
coincide in visual landscape structure. To our knowledge, no other study has empirically
investigated this particular ecological-aesthetic relationship within a working agricultural
landscape context. Our study objectives were to first simulate alternative agricultural landscapes
with various configurations of conservation buffer systems. Second, we modeled the resulting
relationships between landscape structure and ecological function. Third, a landscape preference
survey was used to measure how structure indicative of ecological function influences aesthetic
experience. We define a landscape-scale buffer system as the collective configuration of
perennial vegetation, established according to conservation and/or sustainability goals, within the
defined boundaries of an agricultural landscape. Adding the buffers to an otherwise
homogeneous small-grain farming landscape should simultaneously enhance the preferred
aesthetic attributes of complexity and coherence. We hypothesized that scenic quality ratings
should be higher with each successive addition of buffer structure. This hypothesis is tested
within the context of the Palouse wheat-production region within the boundaries of Whitman
County in Washington State, U.S.A.
2. Methods
2.1. Study region
Positioned on Washington State's eastern border, Whitman County lies in the central core
of the Palouse Grasslands Ecoregion (Figure 1). This region is paradoxically notorious for
producing some of the highest wheat yields in the world, and concurrently, some of the highest
soil erosion rates (Steiner 1987; Duffin 2007). By the early 1900s, monocropping of wheat on
the rolling hills of rich, deep loess soils was well underway and intensified with advancements in
farm technology, agricultural innovation, and transportation infrastructure (Duffin 2007). Once a
77
vast prairie of bunch grasses, flowers, and shrubs (Daubenmire 1942), the region now contains
less than 6 percent of its native vegetation (Noss and Peters 1995; Black et al. 2003; Looney and
Eigenbrode 2012).
Concerns about the impacts of soil erosion surfaced as early as the 1920s (Duffin 2007).
By 1978, 10 percent of the land had lost all of its topsoil to erosion and 60 percent of the land
had lost 25 to 75 percent (USDA 1978). Removal of the region’s native vegetation coupled with
intensive agricultural practices has also led to soil, fertilizer, and pesticide runoff into Whitman
County's major drainage system, the Palouse River—ranked among the most polluted in the state
by the late 20th century (Washington State DNR 1998). As of 1994, modeling results indicated
that voluntary erosion control practices had served to reduce mean annual erosion rates in the
Palouse River Basin by at least 10 percent (Ebbert and Roe 1998). However, a complex mix of
political, institutional, technological, and socio-economic factors have prevented the majority of
Palouse farmers from implementing conservation techniques on a broad scale (Duffin 2007). As
a result, soil and water degradation trends continue.
In contrast, farming activities are largely responsible for the Palouse landscape’s
renowned beauty. The cyclic and dynamic nature of crop production in this striking, undulating
topography has been rendered by landscape artists and photographers for decades. The
seasonally changing colors and textures, dancing plays of light and shadow, and waving fields of
grain have also captivated more than a few visitors and residents alike (Figure 2). Given its
much-admired beauty, despite the negative ecological impacts, the Palouse landscape presents
nearly ideal conditions to ask, “Can the sensual and emotional power of the aesthetic experience
that charms people into this landscape be expanded to incorporate perceivable characteristics of
improved ecological function?”
78
2.2 Site selection
Four viewsheds (landscape scene visible to the human eye from a fixed observation
point) within Whitman County, Washington were visually captured using panoramic digital
photography. Whereas all viewsheds are inherently unique (no two will have exactly the same
characteristics), we selected study viewsheds with closely matched structural attributes according
to the following criteria:
 Representative of a typical farming scene of primarily small-grain production.
 Devoid of unique landmarks or unusual features.
 Located along the Palouse Scenic Byway (Figure 3).
 Accessible and viewable by a passing motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian.
 Amenable to recognition of landscape elements and spatial pattern with the unaided eye.
 Inclusive of at least one visibly perceptible stream in the main valley.
 Direction of panoramic expanse from the photopoint encompasses a reasonable balance
between the visible and non-visible portions of the associated watershed.
All four viewsheds were photographed in a single day of early summer and under a
constrained time period to ensure consistent color and lighting conditions. Camera tripod
position for each viewshed panorama was documented with a global positioning system (GPS)
and according to compass direction (see additional details in Appendix A).
2.3 Spatial analysis for targeting buffer locations and creating land-use maps
A geographic information system (GIS) database, using ArcGIS v. 9.3.1 (www.esri.com),
was developed for each viewshed and its associated watershed. Base map layers of Whitman
County were downloaded from the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Geospatial Data Gateway (GDG; http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov) and included the following:
79
1) 10-meter resolution digital elevation model (DEM) (US Geological Survey), 2) digital ortho-
rectified aerial image, 1-meter ground sample distance (2009 National Agriculture Imagery
Program (NAIP) Mosaic (USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) Aerial Photography Field Office),
and 3) digital, vector-based, general soil map (State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database,
USDA NRCS, 2006).
ArcGIS data management and spatial analyst tools were used to locate GPS-documented
photopoints and delineate the associated viewsheds, watersheds and surface drainage flowpaths
(Figure 4). The perennial stream flowing through each study site was digitized from the aerial
photograph. A percent slope map layer was derived from the DEM and classified to match those
associated with soil mapping units in the Whitman County Soil Survey (USDA 1980). The
physical characteristics of each study site are summarized in Table 1.
GIS analyses and supporting research (e.g., Forman 1995; Dramstad et al. 1996; Lee et
al. 2000; NRC 2002; Tomer et al. 2003; Berry et al. 2005; Bennett et al. 2006; Mankin et al.
2007; Bentrup 2008; Dosskey et al. 2011) helped target permanent conservation buffers in
locations where they had greatest potential to perform the following ecological functions:
 Retain soil on highly erosive areas, regardless of proximity to surface water features.
 Trap and filter sediment and other pollutants in overland flow to concentrated flowpaths.
 Stabilize streambanks of the channel located in the main valley.
Subject to the DEM resolution (10-m), buffer width was intentionally minimized to align within
cultural and agricultural context of Whitman County, assuming the landscape would remain
dominated by small-grain production. Land-use maps were then created to illustrate four
sequential landscape buffer configurations of increasing ecological function. Improved
ecological function is defined as buffer capacity to directly reduce erosion and increase
80
deposition, and indirectly improve water quality by reducing sediment yield to surface waters. In
general, greater reduction in soil loss indicates a higher level of ecological function.
Ultimately, buffers were targeted and sized to three critical locations in all four study
sites: 1) the perennial stream in the valley bottom (10-m riparian buffers = RB), 2) the hillslope
drainage pathways flowing laterally into the valley stream (5-m hillslope drainage buffers =
HDB), and 3) all areas greater or equal to 25% slope (steep slope buffers = SSB) (Table 2). Steep
slope locations coincide with soil units having a 6e or 7e soil land capability classification
(highly erodible and not suited for cultivated crops) and that are neither prime farmland nor
farmland of statewide importance (USDA 1980).
Landscape-scale buffer systems are intended to work in concert with appropriate best
management practices (BMPs) implemented in the adjacent upslope agricultural fields.
Accordingly, this research assumes, to the extent reasonable, the following:
 Applicable best management practices (BMPs) are employed to mitigate surface runoff from
upslope contributing areas. These practices may include, but are not limited to, contour
planting, conservation tillage, crop rotation, stripcropping, in-field filter strips, and careful
nutrient and pesticide selection, timing, and application.
 Upslope BMPs are designed to encourage sheet flow into buffers.
2.4. Soil erosion modeling
GeoWEPP (Renschler 2001, 2003; Minkowski and Renschler 2008), the geo-spatial,
graphical user interface (GUI) of the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model (Flanagan
and Nearing 1995) was used to quantify and compare improvements in ecological function.
Specifically, the model was used to estimate the relative differences in sediment erosion and
deposition rates (tons/ha/yr) among the different land-use scenarios.
81
WEPP is a process-based, continuous simulation, erosion prediction model capable of
estimating spatial distributions of soil loss and deposition across a range of time scales including
single storm events; daily, monthly, or yearly totals; or mean annual values from multiple
decades (Flanagan and Livingston 1995; Flanagan and Nearing 1995). The model can be applied
to both hillslopes (1-100 m in length) or small watersheds (up to about 260 ha) that include
multiple hillslopes, channels and impoundments. Erosion estimates are based on user-inputs of
climate, topography, soil type, land use, and management practices and the fundamentals of soil
hydrologic and erosion science. Pertinent physical and biological processes are simulated
including water infiltration, surface runoff, rill and interrill erosion, sediment transport and
deposition, snow melt and frozen soil effects, evapotranspiration, plant growth and canopy
effects, residue management and decomposition, and irrigation (Flanagan and Livingston 1995).
GeoWEPP integrates the WEPP model with the functions of a GIS, allowing the input
and processing of site-specific and spatially explicit digital data (e.g. DEM, land-use, soils
information) (Renschler 2001, 2003; Flanagan et al. 2011). We performed a total of sixteen
modeling runs, four for each of the four study sites. Digital land-use inputs were the four buffer
scenarios per site developed as described above in the spatial analysis section. A climate file,
specific to each site was modified from the existing database of climate stations using the USDA
Forest Service interactive web site (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/; Elliot et al. 1999).
The soil type that covered the largest proportion a particular study site was used in all four
modeling runs for that site. Management files for winter wheat and permanent vegetation buffers
were chosen from those existing in the WEPP database files and were held constant for all 16
modeling runs. Each run was set for a 50-year simulation period. GeoWEPP's flowpath method
was chosen for this study to maintain the diversity and spatial distribution of the topography and
82
land use and to obtain estimates for soil erosion/deposition rates on a grid cell basis. (additional
details on methodology are provided in Appendix A.)
2.5. Digital image simulation of landscape alternatives
Three alternative landscapes for each of the four existing viewsheds were designed using
digital image simulation (DIS) software (Adobe® Photoshop) (see detailed methodology in
Appendix A). Separate from the study sites, digital images of natural Palouse vegetation were
captured under the same weather, timing, and lighting conditions as the viewshed photographs
for use in the DIS. For the purposes of this research, the native shrub, Black Hawthorn
(Crataegus douglasii), was used as the primary buffer species in the simulations because of its
wide ecological amplitude.
All cultural elements (roads, barns, houses, farm equipment), except wheat fields, were
removed from the original photograph for two reasons: 1) to maintain confidentiality of land
ownership and 2) to ensure that structural differences in each successive landscape scenario of
increasing ecological function were isolated to the amount and location of permanent buffer
vegetation. Additionally, the number and locations of clumps of existing trees (that is, not
associated with simulated buffers) were also equalized among sites—either by adding or deleting
trees in existing locations while maintaining size relative to the distance of view. These existing
trees remained constant across all simulations.
Each of the 16 landscape simulations represents the viewshed portion of each land-use
scenario developed in ArcGIS and modeled in GeoWEPP. The land-use maps along with the
aerial photograph and GIS-developed slope, hillshade, viewshed, and elevation contour map
layers were used to estimate and sketch the buffer locations onto hard copies of the panoramic
83
photographs. These sketches were then used as guides in the digital image simulation process
(Figure 5). (Additional images and details on methodology are provided in Appendix A.)
2.6. Landscape preference survey
Population sampling protocol, questionnaire design, and implementation procedures for
the landscape preference survey were guided by Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The
Tailored Design Method ( Dillman et al. 2009) (see detailed methodology in Appendix B).
Washington State University's (WSU) Social and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC)
provided additional expertise during all phases.
2.6.1. Population sampling protocol
Address based sampling (ABS) from a delivery sequence file (DSF) was used to obtain a
representative sample of the target population, Whitman County residents, via the consulting
firm, Marketing Systems Group (http://www.m-s-g.com). A DSF is an electronic file that
contains the address of every delivery stop on a U.S. Postal Service carrier's route, but without
the names associated with the addresses. The DSF is available only through private list vendors.
Because a majority of residents live in the cities of Pullman and Colfax, a stratified
random sampling protocol was used to ensure adequate representation of the county's rural
residents. In addition, the most populous city in the county, Pullman, includes approximately
19,000 college students who live here for a short time while attending WSU. Therefore, several
on- and off-campus student-dominated housing units were selectively removed from the
sampling frame to similarly ensure an adequate representation of the more permanent Pullman
residents. The final sampling frame included a total population of 15,571 households, comprised
of 10,449 urban (addresses within Pullman and Colfax city limits) and 5,122 rural (remainder of
addresses within Whitman County boundary).
84
Sample size was determined from guidelines in Dillman et al. (2009) and in consultation
with the SESRC, which has a history of surveying Whitman County residents. Accepting a ± 5%
sampling error and assuming maximum heterogeneity in responses from a sample of a target
population of 16,000, requires just under 400 completed questionnaires (Dillman et al. 2009).
Using a conservative 33% response rate estimate from Whitman County residents, the sample
size needed was 1,200 to obtain a minimum of 400 completed returns. The stratified random
sample size was calculated as follows:
Urban = 10,449/ 15,571 x 1,200 = 805 households (rounded to 800)
Rural = 5,122/ 15,571 x 1,200 = 395 households (rounded to 400)
2.6.2. Questionnaire booklet design
The survey questionnaire consisted of three sections and 31 primary questions, formatted
as a mixture of single- and multiple answer, binary choice (yes or no), and open- and closed-
ended. Questions in the first section were designed to assess residents' general satisfaction and
level of attachment and engagement in the landscape. The landscape preference section followed,
asking residents to rate the scenic quality of the landscape alternatives on a 7-point bipolar,
categorical scale, ranging from "very high" to "very low". (Additional questions in this section
asked how strongly a respondent would like or dislike engaging in these landscapes, the results
of which will be forthcoming.) The final section asked for current, previous, and childhood
residence locations and for demographic factors including age, gender, employment, education,
and ethnicity.
Several refinements were made to the final survey design, question format, and landscape
simulations based on the results and analysis of a pre-test. Whereas all respondents answered the
same set of questions, the 16 simulated landscape scenarios were selectively randomized into
85
four versions of the questionnaire booklet, labeled W, X, Y, and Z. The randomization required
selection rules because each booklet version called for one image of each landscape buffer
scenario (Eco-Level B, 1, 2, and 3) for a total of four, without duplicating viewshed sites. To test
whether order of image presentation influenced response, each booklet version was selectively
designed with the same two ordering sequences, for a total of eight versions, labeled W1, W2,
X1, X2, and so on. The ordering sequences also required selection rules to prevent presentation
of scenes as either consecutively increasing or decreasing eco-levels. In addition, images of sites
having closer views (Sites A and B) were alternated in the order sequence with images having
farther views (Sites C and D). Finally, 150 copies each of the eight survey booklet versions were
printed, coded with unique identification numbers (linked to address only; no names were
obtained in the sample), and divided and mailed proportionately—50 of each version went to
rural addresses (33%); 100 of each version went to urban addresses (67%). (An example of a
complete survey booklet (version W2) is provided in Appendix C.)
2.6.3. Mail survey implementation procedures
The mail questionnaire implementation process closely followed guidelines in Dillman et
al. (2009). A pre-notice letter was sent 3 days prior to the survey. The survey packet consisted of
a cover letter, questionnaire booklet, $2 cash incentive, and a pre-addressed, stamped return
envelope. Instructions asked for the questionnaire to be completed by the adult (age 18 and over)
in the household who has had the most recent birthday. A thank you/reminder postcard was sent
to all sample addresses one week from the survey mailing. A second and final reminder card was
sent to non-respondents three and a half weeks after the first postcard mailing. (Example
illustrations of letters and postcards are provided in Appendix B.)
2.7. Statistical analyses
86
We used SAS JMP statistical analysis program (http://www.jmp.com/software/; ©2013
SAS Institute Inc.). Because our variables are categorical and ordinal data, Chi-square tests with
contingency table and ordinal logistic regression were used for the statistical analyses. We tested
an associated between our dependent variable, landscape preference, measured by scenic quality
ratings, and our independent variable, landscape structure, presented as the four "treatments" of
integrated buffer configurations. Specifically, we tested the dependency of the overall observed
distribution of scenic quality ratings on the landscape structural scenarios against the null
hypothesis that the ratings were randomly distributed. Ordinal logistic regression was used to
compare differences in rating distributions between landscape scenarios against the null
hypothesis that the differences were zero. We also converted text-string rating categories to
numerical values to visually illustrate additional descriptive statistical information about the
rating distributions using box-and-whisker plots.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Influence of landscape structure on soil erosion and deposition rates
The final model inputs and parameters used in the GeoWEPP modeling runs are
summarized in Table 3. The number of hillslopes, defined channels and drainages, and overland
flowpaths delineated by the model naturally varied for each study watershed due to differences in
area, topography, and range in elevation (Martz and Garbrecht 1993). Soil and climate were held
constant across the four land-use scenarios for each study site; land cover management was held
constant across all scenarios and all study sites. The mulch-till winter wheat management was
chosen from the existing WEPP database files for its intermediate position between conventional
till and no till. The 20-year old, permanent, mixed forest management file was also chosen from
87
the existing database as a close match for the simulated Black Hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii)
buffer vegetation (Table 3).
The buffer type—riparian (RB), hillslope drainage (HDB), or steep slope (SSB)—added
in each subsequent modeling run from baseline (no buffers) was held constant for all study
watersheds. However, the proportion of total area in each buffer type differed among
watersheds, depending on length of the valley stream channel, number and length of hillslope
drainages, and number of grid cells with slopes ≥ 25%. For the Eco-Level 1 modeling runs, the
areal proportion of the RB ranged from 2.8% (Site A) to 3.1% (Sites B and D). For the Eco-
Level 2 modeling runs, the areal extent of the HDB ranged from 3.1% (Site B) to 4.6% (Site D).
For the Eco-Level 3 modeling runs, the areal extent of the SSB ranged from 2.6% (Site C) to
15.2% (Site A). Obviously, the proportion of area in winter wheat decreases consecutively from
the baseline scenario of 100% through each addition of buffer. In the Eco-Level 3 scenario with
the largest area of buffer vegetation, the proportion of winter wheat cover ranged from 91.0% in
Site C to 78.2% in Site A.
Results for all 16 GeoWEPP modeling runs are summarized in Table 4. Mapped results,
comparing land-use scenario to soil erosion/deposition rates from baseline through each
subsequent addition of buffer, are illustrated for study watershed D (Figure 6). Mean annual soil
erosion and deposition rates (t/ha/yr) for the 50-year simulation period are classified into 10
categories. Erosion rates > 9 t/ha/yr represent areas with soil losses greater than a T-value of 4
tons/acre/year. On a given soil, T-value, or soil loss tolerance, is set by the USDA and defined as
"the maximum rate of annual soil erosion that will permit crop productivity to be sustained
economically and indefinitely" (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/) (see also Johnson 1987; Li
et al. 2009). T-values for all soil types in the four study sites range from 4 to 5 tons/acre/year.
88
Modeling results show a consecutive, overall reduction in soil erosion rates and an
overall increase in area of soil deposition, from Eco-Level B (No Buffers) to Eco-Level 3 (RB +
HDB + SSB), across all study sites (Table 4, Figure 6). For all watersheds, the smallest increase
in proportion of total area with soil deposition occurred between the Eco-Level 1 with RB only
and Eco-Level 2, adding the HDB. The largest increases in depositional area occurred between
baseline and Eco-Level 1 in watersheds B and C and between Eco-Level 2 and Eco-Level 3 in
watersheds A and D. Increases in area of soil deposition from baseline to Eco-Level 3 equaled
48% in Site C, 59% in Site B, 93% in Site D, and 94% in Site A.
For all watersheds, the smallest reduction in proportional area with soil erosion rates > 9
t/ha/yr (exceeding T) occurred between the baseline scenario with no buffers and Eco-Level 1,
adding the RB. With the exception of watershed A, the largest reduction in land area with rates >
9 t/ha/yr occurred between Eco-Level 1 and Eco-Level 2, adding the HDB. These reductions
ranged from 28 % to 18% of the watershed (an overall areal reduction of 38%) in Site B to a
reduction from approximately 30% to 9% (an overall areal reduction of 71%) in Site D. In
watershed A, the greatest incremental decrease (63%) in proportional area with > 9 t/ha/yr
occurred between Eco-Level 2 and Eco-Level 3, attributable to this watershed's greater area of
slopes ≥ 25%. Integrating all three buffer types resulted in decreases between 52% (Site B) and
83% (Site D) in proportional watershed area with the highest erosion rates, leaving 15 to 6%
exceeding T, respectively (Figure 6, Table 4).
Although areal increases in deposition and decreases in erosion occurred with each
consecutive addition of permanent vegetation cover across all study sites, changes differed in
magnitude between buffer types and study sites. For example, in 3 of the 4 study sites the
greatest reduction in area of excessive soil erosion rates (above T) occurred by adding the HDB.
89
In the other site, adding the SSB made the largest difference. The RB valley locations are
inherently of lower slope gradients, less prone to overland erosional processes, and thus, of small
influence in terms of reducing soil erosion rates. However, the largest proportional increases in
areal of deposition occurred in 2 of the 4 sites by adding the RB only, which can be highly
influential in terms of preventing/reducing sediment-born pollutants to the stream. In addition,
the RB contributes other ecological benefits not measured by the WEPP model including
regulating stream temperatures, providing wildlife habitat, stabilizing streambanks, and filtering
pollutants in shallow subsurface flow. These results strongly suggest that not only is an
agricultural landscape's ecological function influenced by the areal extent of permanent
vegetation, but also, if not more, by spatial location and configuration. In addition, one size or
one pattern does not fit all—site specific character must also be considered, as well as overall
conservation goals for buffer system implementation.
For all buffer scenarios across all study sites, changes in soil deposition/erosion rates not
only occurred directly in grid cells with permanent vegetation cover, but also in cells adjacent
and some distance up- and/or downslope. These patterns of deposition/erosion rates are visually
illustrated in Figure 6 and reported numerically as change in the proportional area by soil
erosion/deposition rate at each successive modeling run in Table 4. These changes are likely due
to buffer placement that reduces flowpath length and vegetative canopy that intercepts raindrops,
serving to facilitate infiltration, lower rainfall intensity, and reduce the power of surface runoff.
Some farmers and landowners might be concerned by the amount of land converted from
wheat production to permanent buffer, especially when the SSB are added in Eco-Level 3.
Across all four study sites, the average amount of land converted from wheat to buffers in Eco-
Level 3 is approximately 13.8%. By LCC definitions (USDA 1980), all soils in the study
90
watersheds with slopes ≥ 25% have severe limitations due to erosion risk, designating them
unsuitable for cultivation. Therefore, the SSB added in our Eco-Level 3modeling runs should, in
practice, already be maintained in permanent cover. With this assumption, adding RB and HDB
in Eco-Level 2 converts a relatively small area of the watershed (average of approximately
6.8%), but still delivers a disproportionately large reduction in area with erosion rates exceeding
T (average of approximately 49.3%). Even at the highest eco-level modeled, however, excess
soil erosion still occurs (average of approximately 9.4% of total watershed area), indicating
additional conservation techniques and management practices are needed in these locations.
3.2. Influence of landscape structure on aesthetic preference
3.2.1. Survey response rates and characteristics of respondents
Of the 1,200 questionnaires mailed, 1,139 were delivered successfully, resulting in a
5.1% undeliverable rate. Of the 1,139 delivered, a total of 638 completed questionnaires were
returned for an overall response rate of 56.0%. Of these 638 respondents, 396 (62.1%) were from
urban addresses and 242 (37.9%) were from rural addresses.
Fifty-five percent of the respondents were women and 45% were men. The youngest
respondent was 18, the oldest 97, and the median age was 52. More than one-half of the
respondents work full time, nearly one-quarter are retired, and nearly 60 percent hold a
bachelor's, graduate, or professional degree. Fourteen percent of the respondents farm or ranch,
either full- or part-time. An overwhelming majority (87%) of respondents are white, which is
representative of the low ethnic diversity in Whitman County. The distribution of responses to
questions about overall satisfaction, experience, and familiarity with the surrounding landscapes
are summarized in Table 5.
3.2.2. Scenic quality ratings for landscape alternatives
91
Frequency distribution analyses revealed that, overall, across the four landscape scenarios
for each site, scenic quality ratings were highly skewed toward the positive rating categories.
This result is understandable given the acknowledged beauty and charm of the Palouse landscape
and human fondness of pastoral landscapes, in general. Thus, for the subsequent statistical
analyses we grouped all responses in the three categories, "moderately low", "low", and "very
low" into one category, labeled "low".
Of all scenic quality ratings (N=2533) across landscape scenarios, the baseline scenario
(no buffers) received the largest number and percentage of "low" ratings. In contrast, the Eco-
Level 3 scenario (all buffers) received the largest number and percentage of "very high" ratings.
We used contingency table analysis with the Chi-Square test to determine whether the
distribution of landscape preference ratings was associated with the landscape structure
represented by the four levels of ecological function. We found a highly significant association
(p < 0.0001) between the dependent variable, "scenic quality", and the independent variable,
"landscape scenario" (Figure 7). The observed trend from the contingency table and mosaic plot
indicates the number of "very high" ratings increased at each consecutive level of increasing
ecological function, from 136 for Eco-Level B to 191 for Eco-Level 3. Conversely, the number
of "low" ratings decreased at each successive level of ecological function, from 64 for Eco-Level
B to 26 for Eco-Level 3. The rating of "high" was chosen with the greatest frequency (mode) at
each level of ecological function (Figure 7).
Whether the distribution of preference ratings differed between each successive
landscape scenario was determined using ordinal logistic regression and the Chi-Square test. We
found a significant difference (p = 0.0215) in the distribution of scenic quality ratings between
Eco-Level B (no buffer) and Eco-Level 1 (riparian buffer). Number of "very high" ratings for
92
Level B were 136 compared to 152 for Level 1. "Moderate" counts were 127 for Level B
compared to 110 for Level 1, and "low" rating counts were 64 to 44, respectively. A significant
difference (p = 0.0455) was also found in rating distributions between Eco-Level 1 and Eco-
Level 2 (riparian + hillslope drainage buffers). Number of "very high" ratings for Level 1 were
152 compared to 170 for Level 2 and "low" rating counts were 44 to 27, respectively. No
significant differences (p = 0.1586) were found in the scenic quality rating distributions between
Eco-Level 2 and 3 (riparian + hillslope drainage + steep slope buffers). The more subtle visual
differences between these two scenarios likely contributed to the similar distributions in
preference ratings. Median, mean, and quartile distributions for scenic quality ratings per
landscape scenario are illustrated in box-and-whisker plots (Figure 8).
These relationships between scenic quality preference ratings and visible landscape
structure can be partially explained and validated by established theory and a culturally ingrained
construct of the pastoral aesthetic. With the exception of two existing clumps of trees/shrubs,
each of the four baseline scenarios represented essentially a vast, small grain monoculture. The
visual complexity of each successive landscape scenario was enhanced by integrating linear
corridors and patches of native vegetation into this monochrome vista. The landscapes' diversity
was not only enhanced by increasing the number of elements, but also by the greater variety of
shapes, configurations, and colors. According to Kaplans' (1989) information processing theory
(IPT), visual complexity of a landscape is a preferred attribute because it arouses interest and
encourages engagement, which heighten aesthetic experiences.
In addition, buffer numbers and placement were not random, but specific to desired
function and target location and designed consistently across all scenarios. Most agricultural
landscapes are culturally perceived as neat and well-kept patterns of barns, fences, fields and
93
rows of crops—visual qualities in Nassauer's (1997) aesthetic of care and the pastoral aesthetic
(Marx 1964; Schauman 2007). The integration of the buffer vegetation as tidy, orderly, and
consistent arrangements align with these visual ideals of an agricultural landscape. Furthermore,
we suggest that the buffer configurations enhanced landscape coherence, another preferred
attribute in IPT (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). By repeating the pattern of colors, textures, shapes,
and locations of the buffer vegetation, as sense of order is maintained that is visually pleasing
and helps in understanding the scene.
The skewed distribution toward the more positive scenic quality rating categories may
have additional meaning. Even the baseline scenarios with no buffer structure captured a larger
than expected portion (21%) of all the "very high" ratings. This information suggests that the
ideal of a pastoral aesthetic is still very much alive in Whitman County and may reflect
perceptions in other areas of the country as well. Although the Palouse region is already
renowned for its scenic beauty, our landscape scenarios are unlike the more expansive images
captured from a higher elevation point for glossy tourist brochures. The study scenes are more
intimate, everyday working farm vistas that one might see from a car window. Residents are
generally highly satisfied, rate the existing scenery quite attractive, and feel a relatively strong
attachment to their county's landscapes (Table 5); these sentiments no doubt also contributed to
the overall positive ratings.
3.3. Structural coincidence of aesthetic quality and ecological function
Results indicate a parallel trend in landscape preference and in improvements in
ecological function associated with each consecutive addition of buffer elements to the
agricultural landscape scenarios. We isolated the structural changes in each successive scenario
to the amount and location of buffer vegetation by holding, to the extent feasible, all other
94
potential variables constant. Therefore, we confidently assert that differences among scenarios in
preference, measured as scenic quality ratings, and in ecological function, measured as soil
erosion/deposition rates, are in direct response to these structural changes. Consequently, we also
strongly suggest that the visually perceivable structural attributes of each landscape scenario
provide an accurate and coincident indication of both ecological function and aesthetic quality.
Unlike previous landscape preference studies that have compared different landscapes
types, our study takes one landscape type, agricultural, and manipulates visually perceptible
elements to measure aesthetic preference. Simultaneously, we measured the ecological function
of the same structural manipulations in order to assess a potential relationship between ecology
and aesthetics in coincident landscape structure. Notably, we added structural elements
indicative of improved ecological function to a landscape already infamous for its scenic quality
and in the season most photographed. Furthermore, we intentionally withheld all information
related to image simulations, conservation buffers, and ecological function to ensure survey
participants responded intuitively when rating the scenic quality of the scenes. That we found
statistically significant positive relationships between structure indicative of improved ecological
and aesthetic preference, given this context and methodology, is particularly powerful.
4. Conclusion
We began by exploring the assertion of several researchers that the power of the human
aesthetic response to landscapes could become a catalyst for motivating conservation behavior
and sustainable land-use relationships. But, what if landscape aesthetic quality and ecological
function are incompatible? We countered by suggesting that the potential for landscape aesthetic
experiences to inspire conservation behavior will depend on whether, and to what degree,
ecological function and aesthetic appeal coincide in visual landscape structure. We hypothesized
95
that altering an otherwise homogeneous agricultural landscape by integrating conservation buffer
systems would improve ecological function and favorably influence landscape aesthetic
preference. Our results support this hypothesis within the context of the Palouse wheat-
producing region of Washington State. Our approach and methodology could easily be
transferred and/or modified to test this relationship in other agricultural systems and geographic
regions with similar environmental concerns.
Within the context of our study area, we demonstrated that a relatively small amount of
structural change communicates and supports improved ecological function. Simultaneously, this
improved ecological structure is compatible and indicative of enhanced aesthetic appeal. Our
results support the view that agricultural landscapes can be designed to accommodate both
cultural and ecological benefits. But, how do these results translate into inspiring human
behavior toward landscape conservation and sustainability? The ecological modeling and
landscape simulation methodology could be adapted as a transdisciplinary research strategy to
engage a community interested in a shared vision of their future landscapes. Additional research
is needed to understand the economic tradeoffs and valuation of the ecological and aesthetic
improvements and options for compensating landowners that provide these public goods.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the anonymous participants in Whitman County, WA for completing the
landscape preference survey. Also, we gratefully acknowledge Washington State University's
Social and Economic Sciences Research Center for their guidance in survey design, sampling
protocol, and implementation. Much appreciation is also extended to Martin Minkowski, Ph.D.,
(ESRI, Redlands, CA) and William J. Elliot, Ph.D., and Ina Sue Miller (both from Moscow
96
Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA-USFS, Moscow, ID)
for their expert assistance with the GeoWEPP model.
97
References
Balling, J.D. and J.H. Falk. 1982. Development of visual preference for natural environments.
Environment and Behavior 14(1): 5-28.
Barrett, T., A. Farina, and G. Barrett. 2009. Aesthetic landscapes: An emergent component in
sustaining societies. Landscape Ecology 24: 1029-1035.
Beckley, T.M., R.C. Stedman, S.A. Wallace, and M. Ambard. 2007. Snapshots of what matters
most: using resident-employed photography to articulate attachment to place. Society and
Natural Resources 20(10): 913-929.
Bennett, A., J. Radford, and A. Haslem. 2006. Properties of land mosaics: Implications for nature
conservation in agricultural environments. Biological Conservation 133(2): 250-264.
Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation buffers: Design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways.
GTR SRS-109, USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.
Berry, J.K., J.A. Delgado, F.J. Pierce, and R. Khosla. 2005. Applying spatial analysis for
precision conservation across the landscape. J. Soil and Water Conservation 60(6): 363-
370.
Black, A.E., E. Strand, P. Morgan, J.M. Scott, R.G. Wright, and C. Watson. 2003. Biodiversity
and land-use history of the Palouse Biogregion: pre-European to present. Chapter 10 in
Land Use History of North America. USGS on-line publication:
http://biology.usgs.gov/luhna/chap 10.html. Accessed 04-22-2008.
Blaschke, T. 2006. The role of spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes
and natural capital. Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3-4): 198-226.
Chappell, M. and L. LaValle. 2011. Food security and biodiversity: Can we have both? An
agroecological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 3-26.
Daniel, T.C. 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st
century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54: 267-281.
Daubenmire, R.F., 1942. An ecological study of the vegetation of southeastern Washington and
adjacent Idaho. Ecological Monographs. 12(1): 53-79.
Planning 57(3-4): 169-175.
Dillman, D.A., J.D. Smyth, and L.M. Christian. 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed- Mode Surveys:
The Tailored Design Method. 3rd Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
98
Dosskey, M.G., Z. Qui, M.J. Helmers, and D.E. Eisenhauer. 2011. Improved indexes for
targeting placement of buffers of Hortonian runoff. J. Soil and Water Conservation 66(6):
362-372.
Dramstad, W., J. Olson, and R. Forman. 1996. Landscape Ecology Principles in Landscape
Architecture and Land-Use Planning. Washington DC: Island Press.
Dramstad, W.E., M.S. Tveit, W.J. Fjellstad, and G.L.A. Fry. 2006. Relationships between visual
landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and
Urban Planning 78: 465-474.
Dubos, R. 1976. Symbiosis between the Earth and humankind. Science 193: 459-462.
Duffin, A.P. 2007. Plowed under: Agriculture and environment in the Palouse. University of
Washington Press. Seattle, WA.
Ebbert, J.C. and D.R. Roe. 1998. Soil erosion in the Palouse River Basin: indications of
improvement. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet. FS-069-98.
Egoz, S, J. Bowring, and H.C. Perkins. 2001. Tastes in tension: form, function, and meaning in
New Zealand’s farmed landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 177-196.
Egoz, S, J. Bowring, and H.C. Perkins. 2006. Making a ‘mess’ in the countryside: organic
farming and the threats to sense of place. Landscape Journal 25(1): 54-66.
Elliot, W.J., D.L. Scheele, D.L. Hall, E. David. 1999. Rock:Clime – Rocky Mountain Research
Station Climate Generator. Moscow, ID: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, Moscow Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Moscow, ID (Online at:
http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp).
Falk, J.H. and J.D. Balling. 2010. Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference.
Environment and Behavior. 42(4): 479-493.
Fischer, J., B. Brosi, G. Daily, P. Ehrlich, R. Goldman, J. Goldstein, D. Lindenmayer, A.

Manning, H. Mooney, L. Pejchar, J. Ranganathan, and H. Tallis. 2008. Should agricultural
policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 6(7): 380–385.
Flanagan, D.C. and M.A. Nearing, eds. 1995. USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project Hillslope
Profile and Watershed Model Documentation. NSERL Report No. 10. West Lafayette, IN:
USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory.
Flanagan, D.C., J.R. Frankenberger, T.A. Cochrane, C.S. Renschler, and W.J. Elliot. 2011.
Geospatial Application of the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model. ISELE
99
Paper Number 11084. Presented at the International Symposium on Erosion and Landscape
Evolution. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Anchorage, AK.
Flanagan, D.C. and Livingston S.J., eds. 1995. WEPP user summary: USDA-Water Erosion
Prediction Project (WEPP). USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory.
NSERL Report No. 11. Lafayette, IN.
Forman, R. 1995. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Garbrecht, J. and L.W. Martz. 1999. TOPAZ: An Automated Digital Landscape Analysis Tool
for Topographic Evaluation, Drainage Identification, Watershed Segmentation and
Subcatchment Parameterization. USDA, ARS Publication No. GRL 99-1, Grazinglands
Research Laboratory, El Reno, OK. (available on-line:
http://homepage.usask.ca/~lwm885/topaz/overview.html)
Glover, J., J. Reganold, L. Bell, J. Borevitz, C. Brummer, E. Buckler, C. Cox, T.S. Cox, T.
Crews, S. Culman, L. DeHaan, D. Eriksson, B. Gill, J. Holland, F. Hu, B. Hulke, A.
Ibrahim, W. Jackson, S. Jones, S. Murray, A. Paterson, E. Ploschuk, E. Sacks, S. Snapp, D.
Tao, D. Van Tassel, L. Wade, D. Wyse, and Y. Xu. 2010. Increased food and ecosystem
security via perennial grains. Science 328: 1638-1639.
Gobster, P., J. Nassauer, T. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. The shared landscape: What does
aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22: 959-972.
Godfrey, H.C., J. Pretty, S. Thomas, E. Warham, and J. Beddington. 2011. Linking policy on
climate and food. Science 331: 1013-1014.
Green, R., S. Cornell, J. Scharlemann, and A. Balmford. 2005. Farming and the fate of wild
nature. Science 307: 550-555.
Groffman, P., P. Capel, K. Riitters, and W. Yang. 2007. Ecosystem services in agricultural
landscapes. In Managing Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality:
Strengthening the Science Base, ed. Max Schnepf and Craig Cox, 3-16. Ankeny, IA: Soil
and Water Conservation Society.
Heerwagen, J. and G. Orians. 1993. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. In The Biophilia
Hypothesis, ed. Stephen Kellert and Edward Wilson, 138-172. Washington DC: Island
Press.
Johnson, L.C. 1987. Soil loss tolerance: Fact or myth? J. Soil and Water Conservation 42(3):
155-160.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.

100
Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. Ryan. 1998. With people in mind: Design and management of
everyday nature. Island Press. Washington, DC.
Kaplan, S. 1987. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preferences from an

evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19:3-32.
Lee, K-H., T.M. Isenhart, R.C. Schultz, and S.K. Mickelson. 2000. Multispecies riparian buffers
trap sediment and nutrients during rainfall simulations. J. Environmental Quality 29: 1200-
1205.
Li, L., S. Du, L. Wu, and G. Liu. 2009. An overview of soil loss tolerance. Catena 78: 93-99.
Linehan, J. and M. Gross. 1998. Back to the future, back to basics: The social ecology of
landscapes and the future of landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 42(2-4):
207-223.
Lohr, V.I., C.H. Pearson-Mims, and G.K. Goodwin. 1996. Interior plants may improve worker
productivity and reduce stress in a windowless environment. J. of Environmental
Horticulture 14:97-100.
Lohr, V.I. and C.H. Pearson-Mims. 2006. Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and
conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior 38(5): 667-688.
Looney, C. and S.D. Eigenbrode. 2012. Characteristics and distribution of Palouse Prairie
remnants: Implications for conservation planning. Natural Areas Journal 32(1): 75-85.
Lovell, S.T. and D. Johnston. 2009. Designing landscapes for performance based on emerging
principles in landscape ecology. Ecology and Society 14(1): 44 (online).
Lovell, S.T. and W. Sullivan. 2006. Environmental benefits of conservation buffers in the United
States: Evidence, promise, and open questions. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
112(4): 249-260.
Lowrance, R. and S.R. Crow. 2002. Implementation of riparian buffer systems for landscape
management. In Landscape Ecology in Agroecosystems Management, ed. Lech
Ryszkowski. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
Mankin, K.R., D.M. Ngandu, C.J. Barden, S.L. Hutchinson, and W.A. Geyer. 2007. Grass-shrub
riparian buffer removal of sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen from simulated runoff. J.
American Water Resources Association 43(5): 1108-1116.
Maresch, W., M. Walbridge, and D. Kugler. 2008. Enhancing conservation on agricultural

landscapes: A new direction for the Conservation Effects Assessment Project. J. of Soil and
Water Conservation 63(6): 198A-203A.
101
Martz L.W. and J. Garbrecht. 1993. Automated extraction of drainage network and watershed
data from digital elevation models. J. American Water Resources Association 29(6): 901-
908.
Marx, Leo. 1964. The machine in the garden: Technology and the pastoral ideal in America.
Oxford University Press. New York.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis.
Island Press. Washington, DC.
Merchant, C. 2003. Reinventing eden: The fate of nature in western culture. Routledge. New
York.
Meyer, E. 2008. Sustaining beauty. The performance of appearance: A manifesto in three parts.
Journal of Landscape Architecture 3(1): 6-23.
Minkowski, M.A. and C.S. Renschler. 2008. GeoWEPP for ArcGIS 9.x Full Version Manual.
Landscape-based Environmental System Analysis & Modeling (LESAM) Laboratory,
Department of Geography, The State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, New
York.
Montgomery, D.R. 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 104(33): 13268-13272.
Mooney, P. and P.L. Nicell. 1992. The importance of exterior environment for Alzheimer
residents: Effective care and risk management. Healthcare Management Forum 5: 23-29.
Moore, E.O. 1981. A prison environment’s effect on health care service demands. J. of
Environmental Systems 11: 17-34.
Mozingo, L. 1997. The aesthetics of ecological design: Seeing science as culture. Landscape
Journal 16(1): 46-59.
Musacchio, L. 2009. The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability. Landscape
Ecology 24: 993-1013.
Nassauer, J.I. 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10(4): 229-
237.
Nassauer, J.I. 1997. Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. In Placing Nature:
Culture and Landscape Ecology, ed. Joan Iverson Nassauer. Island Press. Washington DC.
Naveh, Z. 2000. What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landscape and
Urban Planning 50(1-3): 7-26.
102
Noss, R.F. and Peters, R.L. 1995. Endangered ecosystems: A status report on America's
vanishing habitat and wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife. Washington, DC.
NRC (National Research Council). 2010. Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st
Century. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC.
Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, E.D. Wikramanayake, N.D. Burgess, G.V.N. Powell, E.C.
Underwood, J.A. D’Amico, I. Itoua, H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnut,
T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W. Wettengel, P. Hedao, and K.R. Kassem.
2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth. BioScience. 51: 933-
938.
Palmer, J.F. 2004. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape:
Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 201-218.
Parsons, R. and T. Daniel. 2002. Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics.
Landscape and Urban Planning 60(1): 43-56.
Pretty, J. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society B 363(1491): 447-465.
Reganold, J., D. Jackson-Smith, S. Batie, R. Harwood, J. Kornegay, D. Bucks, C. Flora, J.

Hanson, W. Jury, D. Meyer, A. Schumacher Jr., H. Sehmsdorf, C. Shennan, A. Thrupp, and
P. Willis. 2011. Transforming US agriculture. Science 332(6030): 670-671.
Renschler C.S. 2001. GeoWEPP—the geo-spatial interface for the water erosion prediction
project WEPP. URL: http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~rensch/geowepp.
Renschler, C.S. 2003. Designing geo-spatial interfaces to scale process models: The GeoWEPP
approach. Hydrological Processes 17(5): 1005-1017.
Ryszkowski, L. 2002. Agriculture and landscape ecology. In Landscape Ecology in

Agroecosystems Management, ed. Lech Ryszkowski. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
Ryszkowski, L. and J. Jankowiak. 2002. Development of agriculture and its impact on landscape
functions. In Landscape Ecology in Agroecosystems Management, ed. Lech Ryszkowski,
9-27. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
Schauman, S. 1988. Scenic value of countryside landscape to local residents: A Whatcom

County, Washington case study. Landscape Journal 7(1):40-46.
Schauman, S. 2007. The garden and the red barn: The pervasive pastoral and its environmental
consequences. In The Aesthetics of Human Environments, ed. Arnold Berleant and Allen
Carlson, 219-233. Broadview Press. Toronto, Ontario.
103
Scherr, S. and J. McNeely. 2008. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability:
Towards a new paradigm of 'ecoagriculture' landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B 363(1491): 477-494.
Steiner, F.R. 1987. The productive and erosive Palouse environment. Washington State
University Cooperative Extension. Pullman, WA. US Department of Agriculture.
Washington, DC
Stokes, S., A.E.Watson, and S. Mastran. 1997. Saving America’s countryside: A guide to rural
conservation. 2nd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD.
Sullivan, W.C., O.M. Anderson, and S.T. Lovell. 2004. Agricultural buffers at the rural-urban
fringe: An examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the Midwestern
United States. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 299-313.
Thayer Jr., R. 1989. The experience of sustainable landscapes. Landscape Journal 8(2): 101-110.
The Royal Society. 2009. Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of
global agriculture. The Royal Society. London.
Tilman, D., K. Cassman, P. Matson, R. Naylor, and S. Polasky. 2002. Agricultural sustainability
and intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-677.
Tomer, M.D., D.E. James, and T.M. Isenhart. 2003. Optimizing the placement of riparian
practices in a watershed using terrain analysis. J. Soil and Water Conservation 58(4): 198-
206.
Tress, B., G. Tress, and G. Fry. 2005. Integrative studies on rural landscapes: Policy expectations
and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 70(1-2): 177-191.
Trewavas, A. 2001. The population/biodiversity paradox. Agricultural efficiency to save

wilderness. Plant Physiology 125(1): 174-179.
Tscharntke, T., A. Klein, A. Kruess, I. Steffan-Dewenter, and C. Thies. 2005. Landscape

perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity — ecosystem service
management. Ecology Letters 8(8): 857-874.
Tveit, M., A. Ode, and G. Fry. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual
landscape character. Landscape Research 31(3):229-255.
Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science
224(4647): 420-421.
Ulrich, R.S., R.F. Simons, B.D. Losito, E. Fiorito, M.A. Miles, and M. Zelson. 1991. Stress
recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. of Environmental
Psychology 11: 201-230.
104
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1978. Palouse cooperative river basin study. USDA
Natural Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service, Economics, Statistics, and
Cooperative Service. Washington, D.C.
USDA. 1980. Soil survey of Whitman County, Washington. Natural Resource Conservation
Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service), in cooperation with WSU Agricultural
Research Center. US Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
Van den Berg, A.E. and S.L. Koole. 2006. New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation
of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning
78: 362-372.
Verderber, S. 1986. Dimensions of person-window transactions in the hospital environment.

Environment and Behavior 18: 450-466.
Walker, A.J. and R.L. Ryan. 2008. Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New
England: A Maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning 86: 141-152.
Walter, T., M. Dosskey, M. Khanna, J. Miller, M. Tomer, and J. Wiens. 2007. The science of
targeting within landscapes and watersheds to improve conservation effectiveness. In
Managing Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality: Strengthening the Science
Base, ed. Max Schnepf and Craig Cox. Soil and Water Conservation Society. Ankeny, IA.
Washington State DNR (Department of Natural Resources). 1998. Our changing nature: Natural
resource trends in Washington State. Washington State DNR. Olympia, WA.
Wu, J. 2006. Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability science. Landscape

Ecology 21: 1-4.
Yabiku, S.T., D.G. Casagrande, and E. Farley-Metzger. 2008. Preferences for landscape choice
in a southwestern desert city. Environment and Behavior 40(3): 382-400.
105
Table 1. Comparison of physical characteristics among study sites.
Characteristic
Viewshed Area Watershed Area Photopoint View/Watershed Dominant Soil Slope Mean Annual
Study (ha) (ha) Elevation Elevations Steepness Rainfall
Site (m) (range in m) (range in %) (cm)
Site A 37.2 112.5 556.3 536.6 - 635.0 9–Athena Silt loam 0 - 57.1 43.0
7-25% slopes, well-drained
LCC1 4e (non-irrigated)
Typical profile:
0 to 51 cm: silt loam
Site B 26.5 86.7 758.3 751.9 - 812.5 65–Palouse Silt loam 0 - 43.4 58.0
106
Typical profile:
Site C 37.5 73.2 762.6 754.2 - 812.7 65–Palouse Silt loam 0 - 40.2 57.5
Typical profile:
Site D 33.1 51.1 791.9 787.1 - 843.7 65–Palouse Silt loam 0 - 40.9 58.6
Typical profile:
1
LCC = land capability classification; 4e = soils have very severe limitations due to erosion risk that restrict the choice of plants or require very
careful management, or both (USDA 1980).
Table 2. Land uses developed in ArcGIS to represent the four increasing levels of ecological function and expected changes
composition and spatial configuration of visible landscape structural attributes.
Expected Changes in Landscape Structure
1
Land Uses Associated with the Four Composition Configuration
Simulated Landscape Scenarios (non-spatial) (spatial)
Eco-Function Level B:  Increase in # of landscape elements  Increase in areal extent of buffers at

 Winter Wheat at each higher level of eco-function. each higher level of eco-function.
 Increase in numerical proportion of  Increase in spatial variety of buffer
Eco-Function Level 1: buffer elements at each higher level types based on location and shape
 Winter Wheat of eco-function. (HDB, RB, SSB) at each higher level of
 10-m Riparian Buffer  Increase in # and numerical eco-function.
proportion of buffer elements will  Increase in spatial proportion of buffers
Eco-Function Level 2 vary across sites due to site-specific at each higher level of eco-function.
 Winter Wheat topography and hydrology.  Increase in density (#/area) of buffers at
 10-m Riparian Buffer  Increase in # of element types based each higher level of eco-function.
 5-m Hillslope Drainage Buffer on species composition only occurs  Increase in extent, density, and spatial
107
between B and L1 (from one species proportion will vary across sites due to
Eco-Function Level 3 type [winter wheat] to two species site-specific topography and hydrology.
 Winter Wheat [winter wheat + buffer]).
 10-m Riparian Buffer
 5-m Hillslope Drainage Buffer
 Steep Slope Buffer2 (all grid cells ≥ 25%)
1
B = Baseline; WW = Winter Wheat; RB = Riparian Buffer; HDB = Hillslope Drainage Buffer; SSB = Steep Slope Buffer
2
The ≥ 25% slope value is used as a criterion based the Whitman County Soil Survey (USDA 1980, revised in 2009) This steepness is
associated with soils having land capability classifications of 6e or 7e and neither prime farmland nor farmland of statewide
importance. Nationally, according to USDA NRCS, >25% classified is as steep (USDA 1980; http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/).
Table 3. GeoWEPP modeling details, including inputs and parameters specific to each site and parameters held constant across sites.
Modeling Inputs and Parameters Specific to Study Site
Site A Site B Site C Site D
1
Soil
WEPP file WA\ATHENA(SIL).sol WA\PALOUSE(SIL).sol WA\PALOUSE(SIL).sol WA\PALOUSE(SIL).sol
Soil name Athena Silt Loam Palouse Silt Loam Palouse Silt Loam Palouse Silt Loam
Climate2
WEPP file Washington\SITE Hwy 194 Washington\SITE Hwy Washington\SITE Hwy 27 Washington\SITE Hwy
WA.cli 195N WA.cli WA.cli 195S WA.cli
Mean annual ppt. 43.0 cm 58.0 cm 57.5 cm 58.6 cm
Elevation 583 m 785 m 791 m 810 m
TOPAZ3 Watershed
Delineation:
# Hillslopes 28 18 23 13
108
# Channels 11 7 9 5
# Flowpaths 2,091 1,777 1,989 871
Land Use
Proportions:
Eco_Level B 100% WW 100% WW 100% WW 100% WW
Eco_Level 1 97.2% WW 96.9% WW 97.0% WW 96.9% WW

2.8% RB 3.1% RB 3.0% RB 3.1% RB
Eco_Level 2 93.3 WW 93.8% WW 93.6% WW 92.3% WW

2.8 % RB 3.1% RB 3.0% RB 3.1% RB
3.9 % HDB 3.1% HDB 3.5% HDB 4.6% HDB
Eco_Level 3 78.2% WW 89.8% WW 91.0% WW 85.7% WW

2.8% RB 3.1% RB 3.0% RB 3.1% RB
3.9 % HDB 3.1% HDB 3.5% HDB 4.6% HDB
15.2% SSB 4.0% SSB 2.6% SSB 6.6% SSB
Modeling Inputs and Parameters Held Constant Across Study Sites
Minimum
Critical Source Channel Winter Wheat Management Buffer Management Simulation
Source Area Length Duration
5 ha 100 m Agriculture\winter wheat, mulch till.rot: GeoWEPP\Tree-20 yr old forest.rot: 50 years
8/1- Harvest, winter wheat (WA) Perennial, mixed forest
9/1 -Tillage, Chisel Plow Permanent cover, no harvest
9/15 - Tillage, Field cultivation In-row plant spacing: 2 m
9/20 - Tillage, harrow - spike tooth Maximum canopy height: 5 m
9/25 - Tillage, harrow-springtooth (coil Maximum root depth: 2 m
tine); anhydrous applicator Initial canopy cover: 90%
10/1 - Tillage, plant winter wheat (WA) Initial rill cover: 100%
Period over which senescence occurs: 300 days
% canopy remaining after senescence: 50%
% biomass remaining after senescence:70%
1
B = Baseline; WW = Winter Wheat; RB = Riparian Buffer; HDB = Hillslope Drainage Buffer; SSB = Steep Slope Buffer
109
2
see Elliot et al 1999. Rock:Clime (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp).
3
see Garbrecht and Martz. 1999. TOPAZ Overview (http://homepage.usask.ca/~lwm885/topaz/overview.html).
Table 4. Changes in percentage of total watershed area in each of 10 soil deposition/erosion rate
classes for the four GeoWEPP modeling runs (landscape buffer scenarios) by study site.
Study Site Landscape Buffer Scenario1
Soil Deposition/Erosion Eco-Level B Eco-Level 1 Eco-Level 2 Eco-Level 3
(t/ha/yr) (% Area) (% Area) (% Area) (% Area)
Site A
Deposition > 2.25 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.5

Deposition < 2.25 3.1 4.5 5.6 12.2
0.0 ≤ Soil Loss < 0.6 27.7 27.9 31.3 38.4
0.6 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.1 4.5 5.3 8.8 9.1
1.1 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.7 3.8 4.2 6.5 6.1
1.7 ≤ Soil Loss < 2.25 4.0 4.1 5.3 4.9
2.25 ≤ Soil Loss < 4.5 14.3 13.6 13.8 12.0
4.5 ≤ Soil Loss < 6.75 11.2 10.4 7.3 5.0
6.75 ≤ Soil Loss < 9 8.2 7.7 4.4 2.6
Soil Loss ≥ 9 17.1 16.4 11.1 4.1
Site B
Deposition > 2.25 5.5 5.5 4.0 3.5

Deposition < 2.25 1.5 3.1 5.2 7.6
0.0 ≤ Soil Loss < 0.6 40.6 42.2 48.0 47.5
0.6 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.1 4.4 4.5 8.2 8.8
1.1 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.7 2.5 2.4 4.3 4.2
1.7 ≤ Soil Loss < 2.25 1.5 1.7 2.9 2.9
2.25 ≤ Soil Loss < 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.5 5.4
4.5 ≤ Soil Loss < 6.75 4.0 3.8 2.7 2.6
6.75 ≤ Soil Loss < 9 4.7 4.0 2.5 2.5
Soil Loss ≥ 9 30.8 28.4 17.7 14.9
Site C
Deposition > 2.25 5.9 6.3 5.7 5.5

Deposition < 2.25 3.2 4.7 6.4 7.9
0.0 ≤ Soil Loss < 0.6 39.6 41.2 45.8 46.6
0.6 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.1 3.3 3.3 5.9 6.0
1.1 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.7 2.5 2.4 3.7 3.7
1.7 ≤ Soil Loss < 2.25 2.0 1.7 2.7 2.7
2.25 ≤ Soil Loss < 4.5 5.5 5.1 6.5 6.8
4.5 ≤ Soil Loss < 6.75 4.9 4.2 4.4 4.3
6.75 ≤ Soil Loss < 9 4.1 3.7 3.5 3.3
Soil Loss ≥ 9 28.9 27.3 15.4 13.2
1
Land-Use Scenarios: Level B =Winter Wheat, Level 1 = Winter Wheat + 10-m Riparian Buffer, Level 2
= Winter Wheat + 10-m Riparian Buffer + 5-m Hill Drainage Buffer; Level 3 = Winter Wheat + 10-m
Riparian Buffer + 5-m Hill Drainage Buffer + Steep Slope Buffer (≥ 25%)
110
Table 4 (cont). Changes in percentage of total watershed area in each of 10 soil
deposition/erosion rate classes for the four GeoWEPP modeling runs (landscape buffer
scenarios) by study site.
Study Site Landscape Buffer Scenario1
Soil Deposition/Erosion Eco-Level B Eco-Level 1 Eco-Level 2 Eco-Level 3
(t/ha/yr) (% Area) (% Area) (% Area) (% Area)
Site D
Deposition > 2.25 5.9 6.1 4.9 4.7

Deposition < 2.25 2.0 3.3 6.3 10.5
0.0 ≤ Soil Loss < 0.6 37.4 37.9 45.2 44.1
0.6 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.1 4.2 4.2 7.5 8.6
1.1 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.7 2.3 2.4 5.2 4.8
1.7 ≤ Soil Loss < 2.25 1.8 2.1 4.9 4.7
2.25 ≤ Soil Loss < 4.5 5.4 5.5 8.8 8.7
4.5 ≤ Soil Loss < 6.75 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.3
6.75 ≤ Soil Loss < 9 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.1
Soil Loss ≥ 9 32.6 30.0 8.8 5.5
1
Land-Use Scenarios: Level B =Winter Wheat, Level 1 = Winter Wheat + 10-m Riparian Buffer, Level 2
= Winter Wheat + 10-m Riparian Buffer + 5-m Hill Drainage Buffer; Level 3 = Winter Wheat + 10-m
Riparian Buffer + 5-m Hill Drainage Buffer + Steep Slope Buffer (≥ 25%)
111
Table 5. Response distributions to survey questions asking about experience or familiarity with the Whitman County landscapes.
Survey Question1 Distribution of Responses2 Response Scale Range
Duration of Residence Range: <1 to 97 years; median 20 years n/a
Satisfaction 91% feel highly to moderately satisfied with living here. 6-point bipolar scale, from "highly satisfied"
to "highly dissatisfied"
Attractive 89% rate the overall attractiveness of the landscape scenery 6-point bipolar scale, from "highly
in Whitman County highly to moderately attractive. (note: attractive" to "highly unattractive"
this question was asked prior to questions asking for scenic
quality ratings of the simulated landscape scenes)
Attachment 53% acknowledge a complete or nearly complete feeling of 5-point ordinal scale, from "complete"
emotional attachment to the landscape; 28% acknowledge a attachment to "none"
moderate feeling of attachment; 19% acknowledge slight to
none.
112
Daily Travel 53% report that their daily, routine activities required travel 5-point ordinal scale, from never or rarely (<
through the rural landscapes (outside city limits) about 50% 10%) travel to regularly or always (> 90%)
or more of the time.
Routine Day 71% indicate that they spend the majority of a routine day n/a
indoors; 29% indicate outdoors
Time Outdoors 61% say that when they have free time, they will spend it 5-point ordinal scale, from never or rarely (<
outdoors about 50% or more of the time. 10%) travel to regularly or always (> 90%)
Scenic Drive 73% reveal that they are highly or moderately likely to 6-point bipolar scale, from "highly likely" to
recommend a scenic drive through the rural landscapes. "highly unlikely"
Familiarity 64% state they are highly or moderately familiar with the 4-point ordinal scale, from "highly familiar"
natural history and/or ecology of the landscapes. to "not at all"
1
See specific questions in example survey, Appendix C.
2
See preliminary statistical summary for these and other demographic variables in Appendix D.
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Extent of the 46,879 km2 (18,100 mi2) Palouse Ecoregion, with Whitman County
boundaries outlined in the central core. (http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/na0813)
Figure 2. Photographic example of the Palouse small-grain farming landscape in Whitman
County, WA (Photograph by Inland Northwest photographer Alison Meyer,
www.AlisonMeyerPhotography.com).
Figure 3. Study sites (A-D) along the Palouse Scenic Byway of Whitman County, WA.
Figure 4. GIS map of Study Site B, illustrating viewshed area, watershed boundaries, drainage
flowpaths, and valley stream.
Figure 5. Final digital image simulations for two of the four study sites (A & D), illustrating the
four sequential landscape buffer scenarios that represent increasing levels of ecological function.
Figure 6. Example of land-use and associated soil erosion maps for Study Site D resulting from
50-year simulations in GeoWEPP. The four modeling runs resulted in estimates of increasing
soil deposition rates and decreasing soil erosion rates at each subsequent addition of buffer
elements. Areas of soil deposition (tons/ha/yr) are indicated in yellow; soil erosion rates
(tons/ha/yr) increase from dark green (zero or minimal) to dark red (highest) estimated from a
50-year simulation. (Maps for Study Sites A, B, and C are included in Appendix E).
Figure 7. Mosaic plot and associated contingency table of scenic quality by landscape scenario.
Chi-square analysis tests for dependency between two variables by comparing the observed data
distribution to the expected data distribution if the variables are independent (null hypothesis).
The probability of independence the observed data distribution of scenic quality and landscape
structure is less than 0.01% (p < 0.0001*)
113
Figure 8. Box-and-whisker plots of all scenic quality ratings, ranging from 5 ("very high") to 1
("low"), for each landscape buffer scenario. The horizontal line inside the box represents the
median (50th percentile), the ends of the boxes represent the 25th and 75th percentiles
(interquartile range), the line extensions represent the remaining data points, and the diamonds
indicate the mean. For the riparian buffer scenario, the median and 75th percentile are
equivalent. Landscape preference (scenic quality ratings) indicated by a different lowercase letter
above buffer-type scenario on the x-axis vary significantly according to ordinal logistic
regression and Chi-Square tests (no buffer vs. riparian buffer, p < 0.0215*; riparian vs. rip + hill
buffers, p < 0.0455*; rip + hill vs. rip+hill+steep buffers, p < 0.1586)
114
Figure 1.
115
Figure 2.
© Alison Meyer Photography
116
Figure 3.
Palouse Scenic
Byway
State of Washington  Colfax
B C
A
 Pullman
D
Whitman County
117
Figure 4.
Watershed Boundary
Viewshed
Valley Stream
Photo Point
Drainage
Pathways
118
Figure 5.
Site A Site D
Eco-Level B: Baseline Eco-Level B: Baseline
Eco-Level 1: Riparian Buffer Eco-Level 1: Riparian Buffer
Eco-Level 2: Rip + Hill Drainage Buffers Eco-Level 2: Rip + Hill Drainage Buffers
Eco-Level 3: Rip + Hill + Steep Slope Buffers Eco-Level 3: Rip + Hill + Steep Slope Buffers
119
Figure 6. Illustration of buffer scenario (top row) and corresponding erosion modeling results (bottom row), labeled B - 3 for each
Eco-Level. Example is for Study Site D.
Watershed Boundary Valley Stream Riparian Buffer Steep Slope Buffer

Photopoint Hill Flowpath Hill Drainage Buffer Winter Wheat
B 1 2 3
±
120
B 1 2 3
Dep > 2.25 0.0 ≤ Soil Loss < 0.6 1.1 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.7 2.25 ≤ Soil Loss < 4.5 6.75 ≤ Soil Loss < 9 Channel
Dep < 2.25 0.6 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.1 1.7 ≤ Soil Loss < 2.25 4.5 ≤ Soil Loss < 6.75 Soil Loss ≥ 9
Figure 7.
Mosaic Plot
Contingency Table
Scenic Quality Rating
Landscape Scenario
very_high high mod_high mod low Totals
No Buffer 136 172 135 127 64
(Eco_Level B) 5.4 6.8 5.3 5.0 2.5 634
21.0 22.8 24.4 30.5 39.8 25.0
21.5 27.1 21.3 20.0 10.1
162 189 138 104 40
Riparian Buffer 152 188 141 110 44 635
(Eco_Level 1) 6.0 7.4 5.6 4.3 1.7 25.1
23.4 25.0 25.5 26.4 27.3
23.9 29.6 22.2 17.3 6.9
163 188 139 105 40
Rip+Hill Buffer 170 199 138 99 27 633
(Eco_Level 2) 6.7 7.9 5.5 3.9 1.07 25.0
26.2 26.4 25.0 23.7 16.8
26.9 31.4 21.8 15.6 4.3
162 188 138 104 40
Rip+Hill+Steep Buffer 191 194 139 81 26 631
(Eco_Level 3) 7.5 7.7 5.5 3.2 1.0 24.9
29.4 25.8 25.1 19.4 16.2
30.3 30.7 22.0 12.8 4.1
162 188 138 104 40
Totals 649 753 553 417 161 2533
25.6 29.7 21.8 16.5 6.4 100
Cell Value Key: Test ChiSquare Prob>ChiSq
Count Observed Likelihood Ratio 46.440 <.0001*
Total % Pearson 47.199 <.0001*
Col % N = 2533
Row % DF = 12
Expected (%)
121
Figure 8.
5
Scenic Qulaity Rating Scale
1
a b c c
N = 634 N = 635 N = 633 N = 631
= 3.30 = 3.46 = 3.61 = 3.70
0
No Buffer Riparian Buffer Rip+Hill Buffer Rip+Hill+Steep
Buffer
Landscape Scenario
122
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
The future of Earth’s landscapes is unmistakably linked to cultural processes that
influence human behavior (Nassauer 1997; Vitousek et al. 1997; Daily 2001; Liu 2001; Western
2001; Wu and Hobbs 2002; MEA 2005). If we hope to affect more harmonious nature-culture
relationships toward the ideal of sustainable landscapes, we must understand the far-reaching and
growing influence of humans on ecosystem structure and function (Vitousek et al. 1997; Linehan
and Gross 1998; MEA 2005). So far, pleas for land-use behavioral change based on scientific
reports, normative principles, and moral rationalizations have generally been unheeded. A
primary reason for this resistance is the failure of these strategies to connect with what humans
find ecologically understandable and worthy of care.
To be worthy of care and protection, a landscape must embody perceptible qualities that
attract human interest and concern and evoke strong sensuous and emotional responses that
inspire and motivate. In pursuit of understanding how human caring might be linked to
ecological function, I began by exploring the theoretical and conceptual foundations that lend
support to the assertion that landscape aesthetic experiences may catalyze behavioral change. We
are unique among animals in the way we consciously create, alter, and appreciate landscapes
beyond economic utility. We preserve distant wildlands, vacation in national parks, admire
landscape paintings, create city parklands, plant flower boxes, and meticulously maintain
residential landscapes. We will travel long distances strictly for the pleasure of viewing beautiful
scenery, sunsets and sunrises, wildflowers, or autumn foliage (Laurie 1975; Kaplan and Kaplan
1989; Sutton 1999).
123
In the literature review related to landscape aesthetics, I focus on the research and
principles that guide the practice of design within the profession of landscape architecture.
Established landscape preference/aesthetic theory explains that aesthetic responses to, and
preferences for, particular visual landscape attributes are far from trivial. Instead, a strong
component of this behavior is instinctive and deep-rooted and likely developed to ensure our
evolutionary progress (Appleton 1975; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). The landscape aesthetic
experience is a multi-faceted, complex response, however, influenced not only by
physiologically innate processes, but simultaneously by cultural learning, social norms, and
personal traits and knowledge. Yet, despite the myriad of cultural, individual, experiential, and
contextual variables, an extensive body of research demonstrates a notable consistency in human
landscape preference (Nassauer 1995). That is, humans prefer natural-looking landscapes,
expansive views, indication of water, grass-like groundcover, and scattered clumps of trees. This
general description coincides with attributes described in several biologically-based landscape
preference theories (e.g., Appleton 1975; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989), but also with the savanna
hypothesis (Orians 1980, 1986; Balling and Falk 1982; Heerwagon and Orians 1993).
Within the context of modern, human-dominated landscapes, however, aesthetic
experiences and/or landscape preferences may or may not be compatible with perceivable
attributes associated with high ecological function. One strategy offered to address these
potential conflicts is the concept of an ecological aesthetic. Primarily ethically based, the
ecological aesthetic aims to align pleasurable aesthetic experiences with ecologically sound
landscapes, implying preference for these landscapes is good, or moral. Yet, even proponents
question whether the concept is practically or ethically attainable. That is, where aesthetic
preferences conflict with ecological function in the landscape, can and should those preferences
124
be changed? More fundamentally, agreement is lacking on how and which combination of
complex ecological attributes we should measure to develop a clear definition of an ecologically
sound landscape.
Another line of reasoning tells us that acceptable and implementable approaches to
harmonize nature-culture relationships must be conceived within the scale of human perception
and experience (Kaplan et al 1998; Linehan and Gross 1998). Although the powers of perception
and deduction we use to interpret the environment depend on all of our senses, more than 85
percent of perception is driven by sight (Bell 2004; Simonds and Starke 2006). Therefore, the
directly visible landscape manifestations of ecological processes are most important to humans
whose lives and survival revolve around appearances and spatial relationships (Tuan 1974; Bell
2004). I concluded that the potential for landscape aesthetic experiences to inspire more
ecologically responsible land-use behavior will depend on whether ecological function and
aesthetic appeal coincide in visual landscape structure.
The cultural, ecological, and biophysical attributes of agricultural landscapes provide a
compatible and influential context for examining this relationship between ecology and aesthetic.
In agricultural settings, cultivating long-term, mutually reinforcing ecological-cultural
partnerships may have no greater urgency, influence, or potential. We value these landscapes as
sources of food and fiber that physiologically sustain us. We also cherish these landscapes as
sources of our culturally enduring pastoral aesthetic and everyday nature, open space, and scenic
beauty that emotionally sustain, inspire, and renew us. Yet, these valuable suppliers of our
physical and emotional well-being are increasingly threatened by the structural transformations
and negative ecological impacts associated with modern agricultural practices. Recognizing
these inseparable relationships between nature and culture, a conservation strategy that links
125
ecology and aesthetics in agricultural landscape structure may be a powerful mechanism for
motivating behavioral change.
A collaboration between landscape ecology and landscape architecture is poised to
contribute a novel and compelling strategy to explore the structural coincidence of ecological
function and aesthetic appeal through design alternatives. Parallel concerns, intentions, and
spatial scale link these two disciplines and reveal a potentially synergistic and complementary
partnership. Landscape ecological research positions ecological processes and functions within
the realm of human experience. Landscape design is a powerful tool for illustrating and
exploring viable alternatives for integrating ecology and aesthetics. But, design's capacity to play
a primary role in directing landscape appearance has yet to be given equal or explicit
consideration within the realm of landscape sustainability. In agricultural landscapes, this
interdisciplinary collaboration may incite innovative and effective designs capable of sustaining
food and fiber production while balancing ecological function and aesthetic experience.
The empirical study reported in this dissertation demonstrates the potential of this design
strategy using the widely promoted and popularized, but underutilized, agricultural conservation
practice of establishing permanent vegetation buffers. Within the context of the Palouse small-
grain farming region of Washington State, we found a statistically significant, positive
association between scenic quality ratings (measure of landscape preference) and visible
landscape structure (variations in buffer extent and configurations) directly linked to improved
ecological function (measured as reduction in soil erosion rates). We further concluded that
coincident, visually perceptible attributes of agricultural landscapes can embody an accurate and
coincident indication of both ecological function and aesthetic quality.
126
We focused on a single conservation objective for integrating landscape-scale buffer
systems, that is, reducing soil erosion rates to improve surface water quality and maintain soil
productivity. But, in addition to the landscape's enhanced aesthetic quality, other beneficial
ecosystem services also can accrue simultaneously [e.g., crop pollination, pest control,
recreational opportunities (wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing), flood attenuation, carbon
sequestration, improved air quality, and educational and spiritual amenities]. In contrast, the
addition of permanent vegetation may pose obstacles for established crop management practices,
add safety concerns for equipment operators, and/or attract nuisance wildlife species that cause
excessive crop damage. Additional research is needed to obtain a more comprehensive valuation
of these costs and benefits and to explore alternative income opportunities for landowners who
convert productive croplands into permanent vegetation. The GeoWEPP model is particularly
powerful and additional scenarios could be developed that compare many other combinations of
land management; crop and natural vegetation species; and extent, location, and configuration of
buffer systems.
Creative and intentional design is uncommon within the context of agricultural
landscapes. But, several opportunities exist to use our study results to engage the local
community, university researchers, and conservation agencies in envisioning Whitman County
landscapes under various buffer design scenarios. Because the study sites are located along the
Palouse Scenic Byway, a cooperative educational effort might include finding willing
landowners and particularly viewable locations to develop permanent vegetation buffer
demonstration sites. Vehicle turnouts and information kiosks could aid in access and provide
information to both tourists and local residents about the buffer demonstrations. As a land-grant
university, WSU has several local research farms. These farms could provide a venue for
127
landscape architecture, rural sociology, agricultural-related sciences, environmental and natural
resource sciences, and ecology to cross disciplinary boundaries in developing buffer
demonstration sites. With landowner and local resident input, these sites could be used in applied
transdisciplinary research inclusive of public, landowner, and student educational components.
Through the research process, we have developed a scientifically defensible framework
for studying the relationships among landscape structure, ecological function, and aesthetic
experience. The methodology and tools used herein can be transferred directly and/or modified
easily to test these relationships in other agricultural systems and geographic regions with similar
environmental concerns. Ultimately, these efforts are intended as a contribution to building the
bridge that links the scientific relevance of ecological research and its social relevance,
acceptability, and applicability.
128
References
Balling, J.D., and Falk, J.H. 1982. Development of visual preference for natural environments.
Environment and Behavior 14(1):5-28.
Bell, S. 2004. Elements of visual design in the landscape. 2nd ed. Spon Press. London.
Daily, G.C. 2001. Ecological forecasts. Nature 411: 246.
Heerwagen, J. and G. Orians. 1993. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. in The Biophilia
Hypothesis, ed. Stephen Kellert and Edward Wilson, 138-172. Island Press. Washington,
D.C.

Linehan, J.R. and M. Gross. 1998. Back to the future, back to basics: the social ecology of
Liu, J. 2001. Integrating ecology with human demography, behavior, and socioeconomics: needs
and approaches. Ecological Modelling 140: 1-8.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Our human planet: summary for decision-
makers. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press. Washington D.C.
Nassauer, J.I. 1995. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecology 10(4): 229-
237.
Nassauer, J.I. 1997. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. Pages 65-83 in
Washington, D.C.
Orians, G.H. 1980. Habitat selection: general theory and applications to human behavior. Pages
49-77 in The evolution of human social behavior. J. S. Lockard, editor. Elsevier, New York.
129
Orians, G.H. 1986. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. Pages 3-25
in Landscape meanings and values. E. C. Penning-Rowsell and D. Lowenthal, editors. Allen
and Unwin. London.
Simonds, J.O. and B.W. Starke. 2006. Landscape architecture: a manual of environmental
planning and design. 4th edition. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Sutton, R. K. 1999. Ethics and aesthetics in the loss of farmland. Pages 217-246 in Under the
Blade: the conversion of agricultural landscapes. R. H. Olson and T. A. Lyson, editors.
Westview Press. Boulder, CO.
Vitousek, P., H. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. Melillo. (1997) Human domination of Earth's
ecosystems. Science 277 (5325): 494-499.
Western, D. 2001. Human-modified ecosystems and future evolution. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Science 98(10): 5458-5465.
Wu, J. and R. Hobbs. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an
idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17: 355-365.
130
APPENDIX
131
APPENDIX A
DETAILED EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Experimental Site Selection and Documentation
Four existing viewsheds (landscape scene visible to the human eye from a fixed
observation point) within Whitman County, Washington were visually captured using panoramic
digital photography. Whereas all viewsheds are inherently unique (no two will have exactly the
same characteristics), the study viewsheds are considered replicates based on similar
characteristics, which were identified according to the following criteria:
 Representative of a typical Palouse farming scene of primarily small-grain production
(may traverse land ownership boundaries and comprise portions of more than one farm).
 Devoid of unique landmarks or unusual features.
 Located along the paved, Palouse Scenic Byway (Figure 1).
 Easily accessible, viewable, and experienced by a passing motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian.
 Extent of view allows recognition of landscape elements and spatial pattern with the
unaided eye.
 Includes at least one visibly perceptible stream or drainage pathway.
 Contains one or more cultural features in addition to farm fields such as a barn, house, or
road.
 Oriented so that the extent of view from the observation point includes a reasonable
balance between the visible and non-visible portions of the associated watershed.
All four study viewsheds (Figure 2) were digitally photographed, using a panoramic
technique, in a single day of early summer and under a constrained time period to ensure
132
consistent weather and lighting conditions. Camera/tripod position for each viewshed was
documented with a global positioning system (GPS) and according to compass direction for each
angled shot comprising the panorama as follows:
Date: July 1, 2009
Time Period: 1:15 – 4:00 p.m.

o
Weather: Sunny, clear skies, 82 F
Study Site Location A: Hwy 194

o o
GPS location: (1:45:19 p.m.) N 46.73841 W 117.48103 Elevation 1825 ft.
o o
Panorama Orientation (rough): NE 20 – W 270 (panning right to left)
Tripod Height (bottom of camera): 61 inches
Study Site Location B: Hwy 195 North

o o
GPS location: (2:34:30 p.m.) N 46.73765 W 117.2261 elevation 2488 ft.
o o
Panorama Orientation (rough): NE 70 – NW 320 (panning right to left)
Study Site Location C: Hwy 27

o o
GPS location: (3:13:33 p.m.) N 46.79325 W 117.14553 elevation 2502 ft.
o o
Panorama Orientation (rough): NE 20 – W 270 (panning right to left)
Study Site Location D: Hwy 195 South

o o
GPS location: (3:48:01 p.m.) N46.67467 W 117.19505 elevation 2598 ft
o o
Panorama Orientation (rough): SE 150 – NE 30 (panning right to left)
133
Rosalia
Oakesdale
Palouse Scenic
Byway
Colfax Palouse
State of Washington
B C
A
Pullman
Almota D
Whitman County
Figure 1. Location of Whitman County within the State of Washington and location of study
sites (stars labeled A-D) along Whitman County’s Palouse Scenic Byway.
______________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2. Original panoramic photographs of the four study sites located along the Palouse
Scenic Byway in Whitman County, Washington.
134
Geographic Information System (GIS) Database Development
Four geographic information system (GIS) databases, using ArcGIS v. 9.3.1
(www.esri.com), were developed—one for each viewshed and its associated watershed. Base
map layers of Whitman County, upon which all subsequent spatial analyses were performed,
were downloaded from the USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service's (NRCS) Geospatial
Data Gateway (GDG; http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov). These map layers included the
following:
1. National Elevation Dataset (NED) 10-meter resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM),
developed by the US Geological Survey (USGS), in the North American Datum of 1983
(NAD83), UTM coordinate system, Zone 11N.
2. 2009 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) Mosaic (USDA Farm Service
Agency (FSA) Aerial Photography Field Office); digital ortho-rectified aerial image, 1-
meter ground sample distance, formatted to the UTM coordinate system using the
NAD83.
3. Digital General Soil Map of Washington State (clipped to extent of Whitman County),
vector-based (soil unit polygons), NAD83; State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database,
USDA NRCS, 2006.
For each photopoint, ArcGIS Spatial Analyst Tools were used to delineate the associated
viewshed/watershed and the concentrated flowpaths and steep slopes used to target buffer
locations in the alternative landscape scenarios. To ensure the derivation of a continuous
drainage network, the Whitman County DEM was initially processed to remove enclosed
depressions/pits, which are typically due to small imperfections in a surface raster that create
135
artificial depressions. The perennial stream flowing through each study site was digitized from
the aerial photograph.
Digital Image Simulations of Landscape-Scale Buffer Scenarios
Three alternative landscapes for each of the four existing viewsheds were designed using digital
image simulation (DIS) software (Adobe® Photoshop®) by Destiny Design (Andy Sewell, Viola,
Idaho), under my direction. Each landscape alternative was intended to represent an increasing
level of ecological function by adding a permanent conservation buffer location to each
successive scenario (Figure 3). Ecological function is defined in this context as the ability for
buffers to reduce erosion rates and increase deposition, thereby reducing sediment yield to
surface waters (described further in the modeling section below).
Study Site A Study Site B Study Site C Study Site D
Eco_Level Baseline: Eco_Level Baseline: Eco_Level Baseline: Eco_Level Baseline:

No Buffers No Buffers No Buffers No Buffers
Eco_Level 1: Eco_Level 1: Eco_Level 1: Eco_Level 1:

Riparian Buffers Riparian Buffers Riparian Buffers Riparian Buffers

Riparian + Hillslope Riparian + Hillslope Riparian + Hillslope Riparian + Hillslope
Buffers Buffers Buffers Buffers

Riparian + Hillslope + Riparian + Hillslope + Riparian + Hillslope + Riparian + Hillslope +
Steep Slope Buffers Steep Slope Buffers Steep Slope Buffers Steep Slope Buffers
Figure 3. Conceptual illustration of four landscape buffer scenarios of increasing ecological

function per study site.
Based on the digitized stream, concentrated flowpath, and topographic slope layers
developed in the GIS spatial analysis, permanent conservation buffers were targeted in three
locations: 1) the perennial stream in the valley bottom (riparian buffers = RB), 2) the hillslope
drainage pathways flowing laterally into the valley stream (hillslope drainage buffers = HDB),
136
and 3) all areas greater than or equal to 25% slope (steep slope buffers = SSB). These three GIS
layers, as well as the aerial photograph, hillshade, viewshed, contour, and DEM map layers, were
used to estimate and sketch the buffer locations onto the panoramic photographs. These sketches
were then used as guides in the digital image simulation process.
Hundreds of images of natural Palouse vegetation, in various configurations and from
various angles and distances, were digitally photographed and archived for use in the DIS
(Figure 4). These images were captured during the same summer and under the same weather,
timing, and lighting conditions as the original viewsheds. For the purposes of this research, the
native shrub, Black Hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii), was used as the primary buffer species in
the simulations (and modeling) because of its wide ecological amplitude.
Riparian Buffer Hillslope Drainage Buffer Steep Slope Buffer
Figure 4. Examples of native vegetation that was digitally photographed for use in the simulated
alternative landscape scenarios.
The final set of 16 image simulations, four for each study sites, are shown in Figure 5.
Ecological Modeling: Estimating Soil Erosion and Deposition and Sediment Yield Rates
GeoWEPP (Renschler 2001, 2003; Minkowski and Renschler 2008) , the geo-spatial,
graphical user interface (GUI) of the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model (Flanagan
and Livingston 1995; Flanagan and Nearing 1995), was used to estimate the relative differences
in sediment erosion, deposition, and yield rates among the simulated alternative landscape
scenarios (Table 1).
137
Study Site A Study Site B
B B
1 1
2 2
3 3
138
Study Site C Study Site D

B B
1 1
2 2
3 3
Figure 5. The 16 landscape simulations, four per study site, illustrating the increasing levels of ecological function, from B (Baseline)
to 3 (all three buffer types and locations). Simulations created in collaboration with Andy Sewell (Destiny Design, Viola ID).
Table 1. Characteristics of the four GeoWEPP modeling runs applied to each study site and
expected changes in visible landscape attributes across all sites.
Changes in Landscape Structure
Landscape Scenario Composition Configuration
& Land Uses (non-spatial) (spatial)
Existing/Baseline (B):  Increase in # of landscape  Increase in areal extent of

 No Buffers elements at each higher buffers at each higher level
 Winter Wheat level of eco-function. of eco-function.
 Increase in numerical  Increase in spatial variety
Eco-Function Level 1: proportion of buffer of buffer types based on
 Riparian Buffer elements at each higher location and shape (HDB,
 Winter Wheat level of eco-function. RB, SSB) at each higher
 Increase in # and numerical level of eco-function.
Eco-Function Level 2 proportion of buffer  Increase in spatial
 Riparian Buffer elements will vary across proportion of buffers at
 Hillslope Drainage Buffer sites due to site-specific each higher level of eco-
 Winter Wheat topography. function.
 Increase in # of element  Increase in density (#/area)
Eco-Function Level 3 types based on species of buffers at each higher
 Riparian Buffer composition only occurs level of eco-function.
 Hillslope Drainage Buffer between B and L1 (from  Increase in extent, density,
 Steep Slope Buffers (≥ 25%)* one species type [winter and spatial proportion will
 Winter Wheat wheat] to two species vary across sites due to
[winter wheat + buffer]). site-specific topography.
*25% used because according to the Whitman County Soil Survey (USDA 1980), this steepness is
associated with soils having land capability classifications of 6e or 7e ("soils have severe erosion risk
limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to pasture,
rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat") and neither prime farmland nor farmland of statewide
importance. Nationally, according to USDA NRCS, >25% classified is as steep
(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/).
WEPP is a process-based, distributed parameter, continuous simulation, erosion
prediction model based on the fundamentals of soil hydrologic and erosion science. Model inputs
include climate, soil type, topography, land use, and management. The current version consists
of 230 subroutines to simulate relevant processes including water infiltration, surface runoff, rill
and interrill soil detachment, sediment deposition, soil water percolation, evapotranspiration,
plant growth, residue management and decomposition, and irrigation (Flanagan et al. 2011).
139
The WEPP model can be applied to either hillslope profiles (1-100 m in length) or small
watersheds (up to about 260 ha), which are comprised of multiple hillslopes, channels and
impoundments. Any of the several hundred WEPP model input parameters can be accessed and
modified within the WEPP for Windows interface. The model can predict sediment yield, runoff,
infiltration, and erosion and deposition rates across a range of time scales including single storm
events; daily, monthly, or yearly totals; or average annual values from multiple decades.
GeoWEPP works through a user-friendly "wizard" to integrate the WEPP model with the
functions of a GIS, allowing the input and processing of site-specific digital data (e.g. DEM,
land-use, soils information). The wizard leads the user through all the procedures and tools
necessary to prepare the data, run the model, and visualize the results. The four basic steps in the
GeoWEPP watershed simulation process are as follows (Renschler 2001, 2003):
1. Import of DEM, soils, and land-use files.
2. Channel and watershed delineation (TOPAZ; Garbrecht and Martz 1999)
3. Model input parameters and model run (Avenue, CCC and FORTRAN)
4. Mapping model results (Avenue scripts)
GeoWEPP's flowpath method was chosen for this study. In contrast to the watershed
method, which applies the simulation on a representative hillslope for each subbasin, the
flowpath method applies the simulation on each flowpath within the subcatchments and
watershed. The slopes used for the simulation are the actual slope values along each flowpath
(only averaged where flowpaths converge, that is, intersect in a single grid cell). In addition, the
flowpath method maintains the diversity and spatial distribution of the soil and land-use layers—
estimates are for each grid cell. Because each section (grid cell) of the flowpath is assigned the
soil and land-use found in that section, a flowpath can have a number of different soils and land
140
uses. The simulation run estimates the amount of erosion or deposition occurring in each raster
cell of the subcatchments and watershed.
Soil erosion/deposition rates were estimated using the following modeling framework:
1. Hold constant across all 16 scenarios:
 Crop = winter wheat (already parameterized in WEPP)
 Management = mulch-till (moderate-level of conservation tillage, as opposed to extremes
of all "no-till" or "conventional till" - already parameterized in WEPP)
 Buffer Locations = a) linear-shaped buffers, parallel to perennial stream (RB); b) linear-
shaped buffers, parallel to intermittent flowpaths in hillslope drainages (HDB); and c)
patch-shaped buffer in highly erosive areas (e.g., >25% slope) or otherwise unsuitable for
cultivation (SSB) (created a land-use map of each buffer scenario for each site = 16).
 Buffer Widths = HDB and RB width constant, but RB wider than HDB.
 Buffer Vegetation = maintain same species (Black Hawthorn) planted in all three buffer
locations (will likely need to modify a management input file or find existing parameters
that closely match cover and biomass percentages for hawthorn).
 SSB Criterion = steep slope buffer location is consistent based on the selected criterion, ≥
25% slope, but, the number of SSBs will vary across sites, depending on number of grid
cells meeting the criterion.
2. Model inputs/parameters specific to each site:
 Climate
 Digital Elevation Model
 Soils Map
 Land-Use Map
141
References
Flanagan, D.C. and S.J. Livingston. 1995. WEPP user summary: USDA-Water Erosion
Prediction Project (WEPP). USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory.
NSERL Report No. 11.
Flanagan, D.C. and M.A. Nearing, eds. 1995. USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project Hillslope
Profile and Watershed Model Documentation. NSERL Report No. 10. USDA-ARS
National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. West Lafayette, IN.
Flanagan, D.C., J.R. Frankenberger, T.A. Cochrane, C.S. Renschler, and W.J. Elliot. 2011.
Geospatial Application of the Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model. ISELE
Paper Number 11084. Presented at the International Symposium on Erosion and Landscape
Evolution. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Anchorage, AK.
Garbrecht, J. and L.W. Martz. 1999. TOPAZ: An Automated Digital Landscape Analysis Tool
for Topographic Evaluation, Drainage Identification, Watershed Segmentation and
Subcatchment Parameterization. USDA, ARS Publication No. GRL 99-1, Grazinglands
Research Laboratory, El Reno, OK.
Minkowski, M.A. and C.S. Renschler. 2008. GeoWEPP for ArcGIS 9.x Full Version Manual.
Landscape-based Environmental System Analysis & Modeling (LESAM) Laboratory,
Department of Geography, The State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo, New
York.
Renschler C.S. 2001. GeoWEPP—the geo-spatial interface for the water erosion prediction
project WEPP. URL: http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~rensch/geowepp.
Renschler, C.S. 2003. Designing geo-spatial interfaces to scale process models: The GeoWEPP
approach. Hydrol. Proc. 17(5): 1005-1017.
USDA. 1980. Soil survey of Whitman County, Washington. Natural Resource Conservation
Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service), in cooperation with WSU Agricultural
Research Center. US Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
142
APPENDIX B
143
APPENDIX B
MAIL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN, POPULATION SAMPLING, AND
IMPLEMENTATATION PROCEDURES
The mail survey questionnaire design, population sampling protocol, and survey
implementation procedures were primarily guided by Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys:
The Tailored Design Method ( Dillman et al. 2009). Washington State University's (WSU) Social
and Economic Sciences Research Center (SESRC) provided additional expertise during the
design, sampling, and implementation and printed the questionnaire booklets and other
associated mailing materials.
Questionnaire Design
The final survey questionnaire consisted of 31 primary questions in a mixture of formats
including single- and multiple answer, binary choice (yes or no), and open- and closed-ended.
Two of the 31 questions contained embedded, follow-up questions (24a-b and 26a-c), which
were to be answered upon an initial "yes" response. An optional open-ended question on the final
page allowed respondents to provide additional comments. A 7-point bipolar scale was chosen
for the landscape preference questions (13-20) (see an example of the full survey questionnaire
in Appendix C).
Based on the pre-test results (described below), the 16 simulated landscape scenarios
(four for each study site) were randomized into four versions of the survey questionnaire
booklet—W, X, Y, and Z. Because each questionnaire required one image of each eco-level
(buffer scenario) without duplicating sites, the image selection process required the following
procedure:
144
1. Four pieces of paper labeled with the four scenarios for each site (AE, A1, A2, A3; BE,
B1, B2. B3, and so on) were folded in the same manner and the same size and placed
within four different envelopes, each labeled for one site.
2. Without looking into the envelope, one piece of paper was chosen and revealed before
choosing from the next envelope.
3. During each selection round of 4 images, if a subsequent drawing resulted in an eco-level
already drawn, a second (or third) piece of paper was drawn from the same envelope until
a new eco-level was chosen. After the first three of the four different eco-level+site
combinations were drawn, the fourth choice was a given and was pulled from the final
envelope.
4. Similarly, after the first three sets of four were drawn, the fourth set was given.
5. For each drawing round, the first draw was taken from a different envelope. That is, we
began with the Site A envelope for the first draw, began with the B envelope for the
second draw, C for the third draw, and D for the fourth draw.
The four versions resulting from this selection process were the following (refer to Appendix A,
Figure 3 to match the code to the landscape scenario):
Version W = A2, BE, C1, D3
Version X = B1, CE, D2, A3
Version Y = C2, DE A1, B3
Version Z = D1, AE, B2, L3
Each booklet version was further divided into two orders of the images to test whether
order of presentation influenced response. The orders were determined according to the
following rules to avoid additional image presentation issues that might influence response:
145
1. No more than two images in sequential order of eco-level, whether in ascending or
descending order (e.g., 2-1-E-3, not okay, but 2-3-E-1, okay.
2. At least 3 levels need to be in different positions in the 2nd order compared to the first.
3. The order must alternate closer views (Site A and B) with farther views (Site C and D).
Given the selected image combinations of the four versions, the following two image sequence
met the above criteria:
Order 1 Order 2
L1 L2
LE L3
L3 LE
L2 L1
The final eight versions of the survey booklets then, contain the exact questions, but differ in the
images and order presented as follows:
W1 W2 X1 X2 Y1 Y2 Z1 Z2
C1 A2 B1 D2 A1 C2 D1 B2
BE D3 CE A3 DE B3 AE C3
D3 BE A3 CE B3 DE C3 AE
A2 C1 C2 B1 C2 A1 B2 D1
(see complete version W2 in Appendix C)
Sampling Frame Development and Population Sampling Protocol
Address based sampling (ABS) from a delivery sequence file (DSF) was used to obtain a
representative sample of the target population, Whitman County residents, via the consulting
firm, Marketing Systems Group (http://www.m-s-g.com). A DSF is an electronic file that
contains the address of every delivery stop on a U.S. Postal Service carrier's route, but without
the names associated with the addresses. The DSF is available only through private list vendors.
Because a majority of residents live in the cities of Pullman and Colfax, a stratified
random sampling protocol was used to ensure adequate representation of the county's rural
146
residents. In addition, the most populous city in the county, Pullman, includes approximately
19,000 college students who live here for a short time while attending WSU. Therefore, the
sampling frame was also designed to ensure an adequate representation of the more permanent
type of Pullman residents.
The following guidelines were used to develop the sampling frame that defined the urban
and rural target populations and from which the subsequent stratified random sample was pulled:
1. Urban population is defined as:
 residential addresses within the boundaries of the 2010 US Census Geographic Level
"Place" for the two most populous cities in the county, Pullman and Colfax, which are
also defined as "Urban Clusters" in the US Census. These boundaries can be seen on the
2010 Census Interactive Map (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/).
 of the urban population as defined above, excluded are the following:
o all addresses with zip code 99164 (i.e., WSU on-campus housing units)
o all off-campus (zip code 99163) housing units designated as "Group Quarters"
student housing by the Census.
o seasonal addresses
o vacant addresses
o traditional P.O. Boxes (residents who also get mail at their physical address)
o drops (multi-unit dwelling with no unit number information, that is, only one drop
off address for mail)
o 25 off-campus apartment complex addresses, representing approximately 3,000
separate rental units; selected for exclusion by meeting three criteria: 1)
immediately adjacent to WSU property boundaries, 2) confirmed by the rental
147
management office as student-dominated, and in an area devoid of lower density
housing units, such as duplexes and single family homes.
 of the urban population as defined above, included are the following:
o P.O. Boxes designated as the Only Way to Get Mail (OWTGM)
o throwbacks (residents with a street address, but mail is forwarded to a P.O. Box)
2. Rural population is defined as:
 all other residential addresses in Whitman County outside the boundaries of Pullman and
Colfax.
 of the rural population as defined above, excluded are the following:
o seasonal addresses
o vacant addresses
o drops (multi-unit dwelling with no unit number information, that is, only one drop
off address for mail)
 of the rural population as defined above, included are the following:
o all P.O. Boxes—both traditional and those designated as the OWTGM (as
confirmed by two rural postmasters, rural mail delivery within city limits is by
P.O. Box only unless a house is on the mail carrier's route out of town. This issue
was clarified because M-S-G's database showed a contradiction in these delivery
codes designations for the rural address in the county's DSF)
o throwbacks (residents with a street address, but mail is forwarded to a P.O. Box).
According to these guidelines, the final sampling frame included a total of 15,571 addresses
(households), comprised of 10,449 urban (Pullman and Colfax) households and 5,122 rural
(remainder of Whitman County) households.
148
Sample Size
Sample size was determined in consultation with the SESRC, which has a history of surveying
Whitman County residents, and from guidelines provided in Dillman et al. (2009). Accepting a
±5% sampling error and assuming maximum heterogeneity in responses from a sample of a
target population of 16,000, requires just under 400 completed questionnaires (Dillman et al
2009). With a conservative estimate of a 33% response rate from Whitman County residents, the
sample size needed was 1,200 to obtain a minimum of 400 completed returns. The stratified
random sampling size was calculated as follows:
Urban Proportion of Sample = 10,449/ 15,571 x 1,200 = 805 households (addresses)
Rural Proportion of Sample = 5,122/ 15,571 x 1,200 = 395 households (addresses)
These numbers were rounded to 800 urban addresses and 400 rural addresses. For each of the
eight survey booklet versions, 150 copies were printed, coded with a unique identification
number (to address only; no names were obtained in the sample), and divided proportionately—
50 of each version went to the rural addresses (33%); 100 of each version went to the urban
addresses (67%).
Summary of Pre-Test Survey Questionnaire
Prior to finalizing the questionnaire format, a pre-test of the survey questionnaire was
administered to a group of acquaintances, peers, and colleagues. This group of 39 voluntary
participants (approximately 10% of the required number of completed responses) was
intentionally selected to represent a range of ages, social and educational backgrounds, and a
nearly 50/50 gender split. The proportion of rural to urban (as defined above) resident pre-testers
was matched closely to that estimated for the target population—about 67% urban and 33%
rural. A few of the pre-test volunteers were slightly familiar with the research project; but, the
149
majority had no prior insight. To test the clarity, logic, and organization of the questions,
instructions, and overall format, as well as the response to the landscape simulations, I gave no
additional instructions to the participants. However, the participants were asked to freely write
comments, questions, and editorial critiques that they thought might aid in improving the final
version.
Results. I received 38 out of 39 completed pre-tests. Eight image simulations were shown in the
pre-test, which meant that each study site was duplicated, but simulated with a different buffer
scenario. The inclusion of duplicate images caused a considerable amount of concern/confusion
as noted in the following summary of the participants' written or verbal comments:
 several respondents made a note that the landscapes were duplicated and/or that some of
the differences between duplicates seemed too subtle.
 some wondered why the landscapes looked so similar and suggested that I might want to
show some views in different seasons of the year.
 some were confused—even writing to me on the pictures themselves to let me know
which ones were similar or the same—thinking that a mistake had occurred in the
designing/printing/formatting.
 two respondents were suspicious and mentioned the word "trickery"—thinking I was
trying to mislead or duped them.
 other respondents, said that when they noticed the duplicates, they matched them up to
see what the differences were and then tried to make sure their ratings were consistent (or
higher/lower, depending on the differences) compared to what they had answered for the
duplicate placed earlier in the questionnaire.
150
 one respondent noted that the earlier images influenced his/her responses to the images
placed later in the presented sequence.
 other respondents tried to guess the underlying purpose of the survey and offered "help"
by suggesting, if the purpose was to assess landscape diversity in the Palouse, the full
range of landscape diversity should be included by adding images of other views—maybe
of the buttes, forest patches, different cropped fields, etc.
Relative to the above responses, a statistician from the SESRC concluded that the validity
and defense of the survey's purpose could be questioned if 1) respondents are identifying the
duplicates and/or matching the photographs and then deciding the rating or changing their
mind based on the comparisons, and/or 2) by using the duplicate images, the respondents are
unintentionally being led to try to guess the correct answer, and/or 3) by using the duplicates,
the respondents are suspicious, confused or judge that the questionnaire as a trick, faulty, or
misleading.
In addition to the above findings, a descriptive analysis of the overall scenic quality
ratings for each of the 8 images revealed the following:
 After converting the categorical ratings to a 1 - 7 scale (1 = very highest rating; 7 =
very low), the mean ratings ranged from 2.4 (image with highest Scenic Q) to 3.8
(image with Lowest Q); the median ranged from 2 (highest) to 4 (lowest).
 The four highest-rated images were the two duplicates of the landscapes scenes with
the closer views to the observation point and with the barns, farmsteads and trees in
the foreground (regardless of buffer scenario presented).
151
 The four lowest rated images were the two duplicates of the landscapes with a greater
proportion of the view farther away from the observation point and farmsteads/barns
and trees located further in the distance.
 In both sets of four, the Level 1 Riparian buffer was rated equal to or higher than the
Level 2 images.
 Of the eight images together, a Level 3 had the highest mean rating and a LE
(existing, no buffers) was rated lowest. And, of each paired set of images, the one of
greater diversity (higher eco-function) received the highest mean scenic Q rating.
Changes for final questionnaire. The comments received concerning the diversity (or lack
thereof) of the set of images, were understandable given the undisclosed, underlying
question/purpose of the research. Respondents are intentionally asked to rate scenic quality
and likelihood of engagement without directly mentioning landscape diversity or structural
configuration of elements that also improves ecological function. To answer the question,
"Can ecological function and aesthetic quality coincide in visible landscape structure?",
visual structure must be similar in all aspects possible, with the exception of structure
associated with the improved ecological function—in this case, the simulated buffers.
Therefore, no changes were made to address this concern.
Given that the questionnaire is attempting to acquire an intuitive response to the
landscape structure scenarios, the design must avoid directly or indirectly leading or biasing
responses by giving a hint (i.e., using duplicate photos that are easily compared) to the
underlying purpose of the study. Based on these and other issues raised in the pre-test, the
following changes were made to the final version:
152
 reduced the number of landscapes scenes to four per booklet, resulting in four
versions of the survey questionnaire. The four sets of four images, one of each scene
and one of each eco-level, that is, no duplicate scenes or duplicate eco-levels, were
randomly selected within the constraints of the "no duplicates" stipulation.
 based on the result that the riparian buffer scenarios were rated equal to or higher than
the Level 2 scenarios, the riparian buffer scenario was changed to Level 1 instead of
the hillslope drainage buffer scenario. This change was deemed necessary to avoid
questioning whether the respondents preferred Level 2 because of the greater
diversity of buffers or because they preferred the riparian buffer regardless of the
addition of the hillslope drainage buffers. (This pre-test result is possibly due to 1) a
general familiarity with streamside vegetation as opposed to drainage buffers or 2) the
drainage buffers are more subtle and distant features in these particular viewsheds,
compared to the location of the buffered stream feature.)
 In response to the issue that the differences among the scenarios were subtle, the
buffers were widened so that they appeared more prominent, but within reason. The
goal was to maintain the landscape as farming-dominated. Buffers were intended to
be ecologically effective, but a secondary visual feature to the farmland matrix.
 To ensure that the preference ratings were in response to only the differences in
vegetation buffers, all ancillary cultural features, such as barns, roads, and houses
were removed to equalize the visual attributes of the scenes. Additionally, the number
and locations of clumps of existing trees (that is, not associated with simulated
buffers) were also equalized among sites—either by adding or deleting trees in
existing locations while maintaining size relative to the distance of view.
153
Changes made to the final questionnaire version, but unrelated to the analysis of the pre-
test results included the following:
 Developed two ordering formats that were applied to each questionnaire version to
test the potential "order effect" of the four images, which resulted in eight versions
divided among the rural and urban sample populations as described earlier.
 Each site, despite being chosen because of similarities in character, is naturally
unique and displays inherent differences in topography, orientation of hills, or
distance of vegetation from the observation point. However, I will statistically test
"site" and "version" by response ratings to understand if either of these two variables
influenced preference.
Implementation Procedures and Timeline
The mail questionnaire implementation process closely followed guidelines in Dillman et
al (2009), but were modified according to actual response rates and budget allowance (Table 1).
Table 1. Survey Materials and Schedule of Mailings.

Materials Mailed Date
Pre-Notice Letter (Figure 1) October 30-31, 2012
Survey Packet: November 2, 2012

 Cover Letter (Figure 2)
 Questionnaire Booklet (Appendix C)
 $2 Cash Incentive
 Pre-Addressed, Stamped Return Envelope
Thank you/Reminder Postcard (Figure 3) November 9, 2012
2nd (Final) Reminder Postcard (Figure 4) December 4, 2012
References
Dillman, D.A., J.D. Smyth, and L.M. Christian. 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed- Mode Surveys:
The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley and Sons. Hoboken, NJ.
154
October 30, 2012
Whitman County Resident

«Primary_Address»
«SecondaryAddress»
«City»,«State»
«ZIP_Code»«dash»«ZIP__4»
Dear Resident,
We are writing to ask for your help in an important study being conducted by Washington State
University to understand relationships between landscapes and the people who live in them. In the
next few days you will receive an invitation to participate in this project by evaluating landscape
photographs of Whitman County and answering questions about your everyday experiences here.
We want to do everything we can to make it easy and fun for you to join in this study. We are writing in
advance because many people like to know ahead of time that they will be asked to fill out a
questionnaire. This research can only be successful with the generous help of people like you.
To say thanks, you will receive a small token of our appreciation with the request to participate. We
hope you will take the 15-20 minutes of your time to make a valuable contribution. Most of all, we
hope that you find the questionnaire interesting and enjoy the opportunity to share your thoughts
about the landscapes in which you live, work, and play.
Best Wishes,
Linda R. Klein Jolie B. Kaytes William G. Hendrix

Ph.D. Candidate & Associate Professor & Professor Emeritus &
Survey Coordinator Faculty Advisor Faculty Advisor
Figure 1. Pre-notice letter sent to all Whitman County, WA addresses pulled in the stratified,
random, address-based sample for the landscape preference survey.
155
November 2, 2012

Street or P.O. Box Address
City, WA Zip Code
Dear Resident,
We are asking for your help in understanding how the visual character of Whitman County's landscapes
influences the everyday experiences and well-being of those who live, work, and attend school here. You will
bring an important and unique perspective to this investigation by sharing thoughts, feelings, and opinions that
only you know through your personal experience and relationship with this landscape.
Your address is one of only a small number that have been randomly selected to play a part in this study by
completing the enclosed questionnaire. Your participation is voluntary and completely confidential. Your name
is not on our mailing list, and your responses will never be associated with you or your mailing address.
Answering the questions should only take about 15 or 20 minutes.
Your opinions are key to the success of this study. By joining other residents in sharing your thoughts about
Whitman County's landscapes, you will help ensure that the full range of experiences, relationships, and
values are accurately represented and understood. Please accept the enclosed $2 bill as a small token of our
appreciation.
We hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and look forward to receiving your responses. If you have
any questions about this study, Perceptions of the Palouse Landscape, Whitman County, Washington, please
contact Linda Klein, Survey Coordinator, by telephone at 509 339-3529, by email at
linda.klein@email.wsu.edu, or by postal mail at the address on the back cover of the questionnaire.
Thank you very much,
Linda R. Klein Jolie B. Kaytes William G. Hendrix

Ph.D. Candidate & Associate Professor & Professor Emeritus &
Survey Coordinator Faculty Advisor Faculty Advisor
Figure 2. Cover letter sent to potential respondents as part of the mail survey packet.
156
Last week a questionnaire was mailed to you because your household was
randomly selected to help in an important study to understand relationships
between people and the landscapes they live in.
If someone at your address has already completed and returned the

questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks. If not, please have the adult
in your household who has had the most recent birthday do so at his/her
earliest convenience. Your unique contribution is especially helpful to ensure
that the full range of experiences and opinions of Whitman County's
landscapes is accurately represented and understood.
If you did not receive the questionnaire, or if it has been misplaced, please
contact me at (509) 339-3529 or linda.klein@email.wsu.edu and I will send
another one in the mail for you today.
Warm regards,
Linda R. Klein, Survey Coordinator, Perceptions of the Palouse Landscape,

Whitman County, Washington
Figure 3. Thank you/reminder postcard, back message; front of postcard contained the WSU
logo, School of Design and Construction address, and potential participant's address.
PERCEPTIONS OF THE PALOUSE School of Design and

Construction
LANDSCAPE WHITMAN COUNTY, PO Box 642220
Pullman, WA 99164-2220
WASHINGTON
In early November, a letter was sent to
your address that asked the adult who has
had the most recent birthday to complete a
questionnaire about his/her experiences of
Whitman County's landscapes. To the best
of my knowledge, the questionnaire has not
yet been returned. Only by hearing from
nearly everyone in the sample can I be sure
the results accurately represent the
diversity of residents in Whitman County. I
hope this reminder will inspire you to take
the 15 minutes to complete the
«ADDR1» «UNIT»
questionnaire — your opinions matter! If «City», «State» «Zip»
you have questions or need another «Next Record»
questionnaire, please contact me at (509)
339-3529 or linda.klein@email.wsu.edu.
A survey to better understand relationships
Thank you very much,
between people and the landscapes they live in
Linda R. Klein, Survey Coordinator
Front Back
Figure 4. Final (2nd) reminder postcard.
157
APPENDIX C
158
APPENDIX C
MAIL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (VERSION W2)
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
APPENDIX D
171
APPENDIX D
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Landscape Structure vs. Scenic Quality

250 A
200
150
Count
100
50
0
Very Mod
High Mod Low
High High
No Buffer 136 172 135 127 64
Riparian Buffer 152 188 141 110 44
Rip+Hill Buffers 170 199 138 99 27
Rip+Hill+Steep Buffers 191 194 139 81 26
Landscape Structure vs. Scenic Quality

45 B
40
35
Percent
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Very High High Mod High Mod Low
No Buffer 21.0 22.8 24.4 30.5 39.8
Riparian Buffer 23.4 25.0 25.5 26.4 27.3
Rip+Hill Buffers 26.2 26.4 25.0 23.7 16.8
Rip+Hill+Steep Buffers 29.4 25.8 25.1 19.4 16.1
Figure 1. Graphical illustration of scenic quality ratings per landscape scenario by count
frequency distributions (A) and by percent of total responses per rating category (B).
172
Table 1. Bivariate comparisons of demographic variable influence on scenic quality ratings per
landscape buffer scenario, using Chi-Square tests for statistical significance. (See exact wording
of associated survey questions in Appendix C.)
Landscape Buffer Scenario
Predictor Variables None Riparian Riparian + Riparian +

Hill Hill + Steep
# years in Whitman Co. 0.0040* 0.0037* 0.0057* 0.0278*
Overall Satisfaction < .0001* < .0001* < .0001* < .0001*
Overall Attractiveness Scenery < .0001*^ < .0001*^ < .0001*^ < .0001*
Emotional Attachment < .0001* < .0001* < .0001* < .0001*
Travel Frequency 0.0042* 0.0212* 0.0167* 0.0483*~
Location Routine Day 0.1455 0.4150 0.0954 0.0412*
% Free Time Spent Outside 0.0335* 0.0109* 0.0002* 0.0010*
Location Outdoor Activities
Yard 0.0744 0.0010* 0.0219* 0.0008*

w/in city 0.2290 0.4408 0.8169 0.9519
w/in rural county 0.0001* 0.0020* 0.0002* < .0001*
w/in 100 miles outside county 0.1257 0.2798 0.5479 0.6794
> 100 miles outside county 0.0251* 0.2858 0.7931 0.2923
Likeliness to Recommend Scenic < .0001* < .0001* < .0001* < .0001*
Drive
Familiarity w/ Ecology/Nat. History 0.0302* 0.0044* 0.1203 0.0645

W Co.
Residence Location 0.0152* 0.0477* 0.5983 0.7688
Lived Other 0.7449 0.6665 0.8096 0.6739
*Prob (p-value) > ChiSq, Whole Model; for contingency tables, chose the Pearson's Chi-Square test p-value.
^Warning: 20% of cells have expected count less than 5, Chi-Square suspect.
~Likelihood Ratio test opposite of Pearson, i.e., if Pearson sig, Likeli not; if Pearson not, Likeli sig.
173
Table 1 continued.

Hill Hill + Steep
Reasons for Move to W Co.
Farm/Ranch Opportunities 0.1175 0.0053* 0.0717~ 0.6235

Business/Employment 0.0693 0.7821 0.5247 0.6783
Quality of Life < .0001* < .0001* 0.0004* 0.0172*
Attend School 0.1789 0.1773 0.4006 0.5282
Scenic Beauty < .0001* < .0001* 0.0003* < .0001*
Moved w/ Family/Spouse 0.6737 0.2363 0.1330 0.1604
Retirement 0.0493* 0.0098* 0.0287* 0.0588
Recreational Opportunities 0.0005* 0.0019* 0.0094* 0.0188*
Childhood Location 0.1627 0.3532 0.9827 0.7199
Farm/Ranch in Whitman Co. 0.0545~ 0.0450* 0.5062 0.3938
Age 0.3545 0.0183* 0.0224* 0.0387*
Gender 0.0971 0.3038 0.0427* 0.1292
Employment Status 0.1472 0.1349^ 0.1190^ 0.1198^
Education 0.3828 0.5341 0.0436*^ 0.0849^
Ethnicity 0.3913^ 0.8011^ 0.6795^ 0.4502^
Urban_Rural 0.0033* 0.0024* 0.0036* 0.0047*
^Warning: 20% of cells have expected count less than 5, ChiSquare suspect.
174
Table 2. Bivariate comparisons of demographic variable influence on desire to recreate ratings
per landscape buffer scenario, using Chi-Square tests for statistical significance. (See exact
wording of associated survey questions in Appendix C.)

Hill Hill + Steep
# years in Whitman Co. 0.8073 0.6049 0.5060 0.1942
Overall Satisfaction < .0001*^ < .0001*^ < .0001*^ < .0001*^
Overall Attractiveness Scenery < .0001* < .0001*^ < .0001*^ < .0001*^
Travel Frequency 0.5110 0.1469 0.2796 0.3239
Location Routine Day 0.4820 0.9119 0.2167 0.3621
% Free Time Spent Outside 0.4299 0.0745 0.0027* 0.0469*~
Yard 0.8234 0.2369 0.1713 0.4227

w/in city 0.3037 0.3125 0.5352 0.2433
w/in rural county < .0001* 0.0001* 0.0007* 0.0005*
> 100 miles outside county 0.4271 0.6774 0.2162 0.0764
Drive
Familiarity w/ Ecology/Nat. History 0.1359 0.1031 0.0844 0.0648

W Co.
Residence Location 0.8358 0.3226 0.8924 0.5856
Lived Other 0.4874 0.5766 0.6922 0.0151*
175
Table 2 continued.

Hill Hill + Steep
Farm/Ranch Opportunities 0.5562 0.1611 0.4801 0.4946

Quality of Life 0.0010* 0.0004* 0.0001* 0.0057*
Attend School 0.7593 0.6922 0.9985 0.9560
Scenic Beauty 0.002* < .0001* 0.0009* 0.0308*
Moved w/ Family/Spouse 0.8490 0.5440 0.3922 0.3831
Retirement 0.0457* 0.1317 0.7487 0.7466
Recreational Opportunities 0.1083 0.0241* 0.0080* 0.1278
Farm/Ranch in Whitman Co. 0.6624 0.7189 0.5195 0.7639
Age 0.1150 0.5966 0.1375 0.0829
Gender 0.2591 0.4902 0.0294* 0.5297
Employment Status 0.6069^ 0.6384^ 0.5500^ 0.7387^
Education 0.6299 0.4893^ 0.0820^ 0.0128*^
Ethnicity 0.1715^ 0.6871^ 0.5340^ 0.7653^
Urban_Rural 0.3751 0.0422* 0.4353 0.3775
176
Table 3. Bivariate comparisons of demographic variable influence on desire to reside ratings per

Hill Hill + Steep
# years in Whitman Co. 0.0013* 0.0072* 0.0079* 0.0345*
Overall Satisfaction < .0001* < .0001*^ < .0001*^ < .0001*^
Overall Attractiveness Scenery < .0001*^ < .0001* < .0001* < .0001*
Travel Frequency 0.0023* < .0001* 0.0128* 0.0011*
Location Routine Day 0.0031* 0.0016* 0.1520 0.0213*
% Free Time Spent Outside 0.1103 0.0039* < .0001* 0.0078*
Yard 0.6866 0.1798 0.0340* 0.0246*

w/in city 0.0235* 0.0637 0.1911 0.0979
w/in rural county 0.0026* 0.0006* 0.0003* 0.0002*
> 100 miles outside county 0.0050* 0.0071* 0.0894 0.1122
Likeliness to Recommend Scenic 0.0001* 0.0012* 0.0011* < .0001*

Drive

W Co.
Residence Location 0.0009* 0.0003* 0.0690 0.0102*
Lived Other 0.1165 0.2403 0.7651 0.3704
177
Table 3 continued.

Hill Hill + Steep
Farm/Ranch Opportunities 0.0031* 0.0003* 0.0039* 0.0732

Quality of Life < .0001* < .0001* 0.0003* 0.0007*
Attend School 0.3646 0.0782 0.0856 0.0045*
Scenic Beauty < .0001* < .0001* 0.0031* 0.0031*
Moved w/ Family/Spouse 0.0128* 0.1397 0.0436* 0.4000
Retirement 0.0086* 0.0032* 0.5149 0.2571
Recreational Opportunities 0.0137* < .0001* 0.0361* 0.0135*
Farm/Ranch in Whitman Co. 0.0006* 0.0007* 0.0651~ 0.0128*
Age 0.5806 0.3145 0.7427 0.2722
Gender 0.2890 0.7965 0.5755 0.5518
Employment Status 0.3894 0.0653^~ 0.4038^ 0.1964^
Education 0.0462* 0.2597 0.0022* 0.2147
Ethnicity 0.1159^ 0.0035* 0.0040* 0.0068*
Urban_Rural < .0001* < .0001* < .0001* < .0001*
^Warning: 20% of cells have expected count less than 5, Chi-Square suspect.
178
Table 4. Bivariate comparisons of demographic variable influence on desire to view ratings per

Hill Hill + Steep
# years in Whitman Co. 0.1892 0.3355 0.4866 0.3214
Overall Satisfaction < .0001*^ < .0001*^ < .0001*^ < .0001*^
Overall Attractiveness Scenery < .0001* < .0001* < .0001*^ < .0001*^
Travel Frequency 0.0671~ 0.0012* 0.0926 0.0571~
Location Routine Day 0.0440* 0.0903 0.4699 0.1287
% Free Time Spent Outside 0.1457 0.0357*~ < .0001* 0.0249*
Yard 0.1764 0.0838 0.0724 0.0723

w/in city 0.0862 0.0702 0.0406* 0.2103
w/in rural county 0.0003* 0.0073* < .0001* 0.0004*
> 100 miles outside county 0.0972 0.0048* 0.1448 0.0240*
Drive

W Co.
Residence Location 0.0640 0.2929 0.4363 0.3692
Lived Other 0.4801 0.3819 0.3957 0.1092
179
Table 4 continued.

Hill Hill + Steep
Farm/Ranch Opportunities 0.0305* 0.0148* 0.0665 0.5376

Quality of Life 0.0003* 0.0001* 0.0003* 0.0014*
Attend School 0.3135 0.1780 0.1225 0.0902
Scenic Beauty 0.0001* < .0001* 0.0059* 0.0041*
Moved w/ Family/Spouse 0.0125* 0.0458* 0.1224 0.3041
Retirement 0.0068* 0.0080* 0.1209~ 0.0133*
Recreational Opportunities 0.0586 0.0112* 0.0470* 0.0283*
Farm/Ranch in Whitman Co. 0.0318* 0.1415 0.3246 0.4041
Age 0.6705 0.7070 0.9739 0.1347
Gender 0.2130 0.0643 0.0279* 0.8020
Employment Status 0.4237^ 0.1656^ 0.2811^ 0.2748^
Education 0.5568 0.4130 0.1443 0.0044*^
Ethnicity 0.7283 0.1033 0.2817^ 0.0972^
Urban_Rural 0.0134* 0.0116* 0.0548 0.0083*
180
APPENDIX E
181
APPENDIX E: MODELING RESULTS
Figure 1. Study Site A buffer scenario (left column) and corresponding erosion modeling results
(right column), labeled B - 3 for each Eco-Level.
B B
±
1 1
2 2
3 3
0 210 420 840 Meters
Dep < 2.25 0.6 ≤ Soil Loss < 1.1 1.7 ≤ Soil Loss < 2.25 4.5 ≤ Soil Loss < 6.75 Soil Loss > 9

182
Figure 2. Study Site B buffer scenario (left column) and corresponding erosion modeling results
(right column) , labeled B - 3 for each Eco-Level.
B B
±
1 1
2 2
3 0 175 350 700 Meters

3

183
Figure 3. Study Site C buffer scenario (left column) and corresponding erosion modeling results
(right column), labeled B - 3 for each Eco-Level.
B B
1
± 1
2 2
3 3
0 180 360 720 Meters

184
APPENDIX F
185
APPENDIX F
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Virginia Lohr and Linda Klein,
FROM: Patrick Conner, Office of Research Assurances (3005)
DATE: 10/22/2012
SUBJECT: Certification of Exemption, IRB Number 12813
Based on the Exemption Determination Application submitted for the study titled "Perceptions
of the Palouse Landscape, Whitman County, WA," and assigned IRB # 12813, the WSU Office
of Research Assurances has determined that the study satisfies the criteria for Exempt Research
at 45 CFR 46.101(b)(2).
This study may be conducted according to the protocol described in the Application without
further review by the IRB.
It is important to note that certification of exemption is NOT approval by the IRB. You may not
include the statement that the WSU IRB has reviewed and approved the study for human subject
participation. Remove all statements of IRB Approval and IRB contact information from study
materials that will be disseminated to participants.
This certification is valid only for the study protocol as it was submitted to the ORA. Studies
certified as Exempt are not subject to continuing review (this Certification does not expire). If
any changes are made to the study protocol, you must submit the changes to the ORA for
determination that the study remains Exempt before implementing the changes (The Request for
Amendment form is available online at
http://www.irb.wsu.edu/documents/forms/rtf/Amendment_Request.rtf).
Exempt certification does NOT relieve the investigator from the responsibility of providing
continuing attention to protection of human subjects participating in the study and adherence to
ethical standards for research involving human participants.
In accordance with WSU Business Policies and Procedures Manual (BPPM), this Certification of
Exemption, a copy of the Exemption Determination Application identified by this certification
and all materials related to data collection, analysis or reporting must be retained by the Principal
Investigator for THREE (3) years following completion of the project (BPPM 90.01). This
retention schedule does not apply to audio or visual recordings of participants, which are to be
erased, deleted or otherwise destroyed once all transcripts of the recordings are completed and
186
verified.
You may view the current status or download copies of the Certified Application by going to
https://myresearch.wsu.edu/IRB.aspx?HumanActivityID=36855
Washington State University is covered under Human Subjects Assurance Number

FWA00002946 which is on file with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).
Review Type: New

Review Category: Exempt
Date Received: 10/8/2012
Exemption Category: 45 CFR 46.101 (b)(2)
OGRD No.: N/A
Funding Agency: N/A
You have received this notification as you are referenced on a document within the
MyResearch.wsu.edu system. You can change how you receive notifications by visiting
https://MyResearch.wsu.edu/MyPreferences.aspx
Please Note: This notification will not show other recipients as their notification preferences
require separate delivery.
187

Klein Wsu 0251E 10729

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Klein Wsu 0251E 10729

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUANTIFYING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ECOLOGY AND AESTHETICS

LINDA RUTH KLEIN

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

KLEIN find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

Much appreciation is given foremost to my committee members, Bill Hendrix, Jolie

critical junctures. Thank you so much.

Because my research project was interdisciplinary in nature, questions were answered

been possible nor as rewarding. And, finally . . .

untraveled, the accomplishments and disappointments,

and the landscape experiences that, together,

have guided me to this moment in my life,

by Linda Ruth Klein, Ph.D.

Chair: William G. Hendrix

Biodiversity decline and ecological degradation continue unabated despite accumulation

of ecological knowledge, proliferation of sustainability research, and efforts to conserve natural

understandable or worthy of care. Acceptable and applicable approaches to nurture long-term,

The cultural, ecological, and biophysical attributes of agricultural landscapes provide a

However, the emotional power of aesthetic experiences to motivate conservation behavior in

disciplines of landscape ecology and landscape architecture expose a potentially synergistic

ecological function and aesthetic quality coincide in visible landscape structure?

farming landscape of Whitman County, Washington. The capacity of these landscape-scale

alternative landscape scenarios on aesthetic preference is measured by residents' scenic quality

statistically significant, positive relationship between landscape preference and landscape

ecological function and aesthetic quality.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... x

LISTOF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xi

2. THEORY AND CONCEPTS IN LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS AND THE

POTENTIAL FOR AN ECOLOGICAL AESTHETIC .............................................. 12

Searching for a Unified Theory .......................................................................... 12

Aesthetic Philosophy and Landscape Aesthetic Experience .............................. 13

Environmental Psychology and Landscape Preference ...................................... 16

The Concept of an Ecological Aesthetic ............................................................. 19

Not so Fast . . . In the Defense of Scenic Beauty ................................................ 22

3. WITHIN VIEW: ECOLOGY, EXPERIENCE, AND APPEARANCE OF

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES ............................................... 30

Ecosystem Services and Agricultural Sustainability .......................................... 35

Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs ....................................................................... 35

Counterbalancing System-Degrading Processes at the Landscape-Scale .... 37

Aesthetic Experience of the Pastoral Landscape .......................................... 39

Visual Attributes and Cultural Significance of the Pastoral Aesthetic ......... 40

A Potential Catalyst for Sustainable Land-Use Behavior ................................... 41

Performance of Appearance and Emergent Landscape Properties ............... 42

Fusing Ecology and Aesthetics via Landscape Ecology-Landscape

Architecture Collaborations .................................................................... 43

Designing Buffers to Sustain Agricultural Landscapes ...................................... 44

Disproportionality, Ecological Targeting, and Sense of Place in Buffer

Buffer Qualities that Transcend Boundaries of Place ................................... 46

Coincident Ecological and Aesthetic Values in Visually Perceptible

Landscape Structure ................................................................................ 47

4. LINKING ECOLOGY AND AESTHETICS IN AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES: A

CASE STUDY FROM THE PALOUSE REGION OF WASHINGTON STATE,

Results and Discussion ....................................................................................... 87

5. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 123

A. DETAILED RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................. 132

B. SURVEY DESIGN, SAMPLING, AND IMPLEMENTATATION PROTOCOL ... 144

C. MAIL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................... 159

D. DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICAL

ANALYSES .............................................................................................................. 172

E. EROSION MODELING RESULTS FOR STUDY SITES A-C ............................... 182

F. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD EXEMPTION NOTIFICATION ................. 186

permanent conservation buffers in agricultural landscapes .......................................................... 6