The multifaceted aspects of agricultural landscape value and agricultural landscape valuation exhibit diversity
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The agricultural landscape is a synthesis of human culture and natural environment. This cultural landscape possesses a distinct identity and holds significant importance. Both urbanization and agricultural operations have an impact on the values and environment of agricultural landscapes. Numerous global organizations have implemented policies that protect and address environmental issues in agricultural areas. However, Thailand still emphasizes on economical values. This study, therefore, aims to evaluate the worth of different agricultural landscapes and apply this assessment to the agricultural landscape of Thailand. By thoroughly examining relevant organizations' documents, research papers, publications, and policies, the agricultural landscape has been established to have multiple dimensions, including both natural and cultural elements. Agriculture processes that contribute to the distinctive landscape of agricultural Landscape have varied degrees of value across multiple aspects, such as (1) The value of cultural elements that can be physically perceived for their historical values, antiquity, and uniqueness; (2) Agriculture and traditional natural values, including local flora, water sources, tree clusters, and landforms; (3) The wisdom-based approach that enhances the value of agricultural land by promoting the development of natural and semi-natural agricultural landscapes that align with the original ecology; and (4) The aesthetic value and beauty of the place that make it an attractive destination for recreational, agricultural, and cultural tourism. The purpose of agricultural landscape assessment is to safeguard their inherent qualities, restore depreciated value, and plan for development. Finally, the evaluation consists of four primary indicators. This assessment utilizes a quantitative evaluation to assess the land cover as well as a qualitative evaluation to assess intangible dimensions such as aesthetics and attractiveness.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Transfer Statement
The copyright of this article is transferred to Journal of The Faculty of Architecture King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang with effect if and when the article is accepted for publication. The copyright transfer covers the exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints, translations, photographic reproductions, electronic form (offline, online) or any other reproductions of similar nature.
The author warrants that this contribution is original and that he/she has full power to make this grant. The author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all co-authors.
References
Afelt, W. J. (2015). TECHNITAS method for assessment of the values attributed to cultural heritage of technology. In B. Szmygin (Ed.), How to Assess Built Heritage? Assumptions, Methodologies, Examples of Heritage Assessment Systems (pp. 9-46). International Scientiic Committee for Theory and Philosophy of Conservation and Restoration ICOMOS; Romualdo Del Bianco Foundatione; Lublin University of Technology; Nadbystrzycka 38D, 20-618 Lublin. https://www.academia.edu/33804161/How_to_Assess_Built_Heritage_Assumptions_Methodologies_Examples_of_Heritage_Assessment_Systems_ICOMOS_2016_05
Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., & Vogl, C. R. (2014). Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics, 105, 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.013
Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 616-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
Cooper, N., Brady, E., Steen, H., & Bryce, R. (2016). Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’. Ecosystem Services, 21, 218-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014
Dale, V. H., & Beyeler, S. C. (2001). Challenges in the development and use of ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators, 1(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(01)00003-6
Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4), 267-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4
Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T., Flint, C. G., Gobster, P. H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S., Penker, M., Ribe, R. G., Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., . . . Von Der Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(23), 8812-8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2023). Standards on good agricultural and environmental conditions of land (INTRODUCTORY HANDBOOK, Issue. https://www.fao.org/3/cb3304en/cb3304en.pdf
Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., Witt, A., & Makeschin, F. (2013). Assessment of landscape aesthetics—Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecological Indicators, 32, 222-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.026
Gabriel, D., Roschewitz, I., Tscharntke, T., & Thies, C. (2006). Beta diversity at different spatial scales: Plant communities in organic and conventional agriculture. Ecological Applications, 16(5), 2011-2021. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2011:BDADSS]2.0.CO;2
Harishnaika, N., Arpitha M., Ahmed, S. A., & Ashwini Ks. (2023). Geospatial investigation of site suitability for ecotourism development using AHP and GIS techniques in Uttara Kannada district, Karnataka state, India. World Development Sustainability, 3, 100114. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wds.2023.100114
Hermes, J., Albert, C., & von Haaren, C. (2018). Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany. Ecosystem Services, 31, 296-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.015
Jongeneel, R. A., Polman, N. B. P., & Slangen, L. H. G. (2008). Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional? . Land Use Policy, 25(1), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.001
Junge, X., Schüpbach, B., Walter, T., Schmid, B., & Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2015). Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133, 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.010
Karasov, O., Vieira, A. A. B., Külvik, M., & Chervanyov, I. (2020). Landscape coherence revisited: GIS-based mapping in relation to scenic values and preferences estimated with geolocated social media data. Ecological Indicators, 111, 105973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105973
Mahoney, P. (2015). Methodology for Global Comparative Analysis. In B. Szmygin (Ed.), How to Assess Built Heritage? Assumptions, Methodologies, Examples of Heritage Assessment Systems (pp. 207-217). International Scientiic Committee for Theory and Philosophy of Conservation and Restoration ICOMOS; Romualdo Del Bianco Foundatione; Lublin University of Technology; Nadbystrzycka 38D, 20-618 Lublin. https://www.academia.edu/33804161/How_to_Assess_Built_Heritage_Assumptions_Methodologies_Examples_of_Heritage_Assessment_Systems_ICOMOS_2016_05
Martín, B., Ortega, E., Otero, I., & Arce, R. M. (2016). Landscape character assessment with GIS using map-based indicators and photographs in the relationship between landscape and roads. Journal of Environmental Management, 180, 324-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.044
McHarg, I. L. (1981). Human ecological planning at Pennsylvania. Landscape Planning, 8(2), 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(81)90029-0
Medeiros, A., Fernandes, C., Gonçalves, J. F., & Farinha-Marques, P. (2021). Research trends on integrative landscape assessment using indicators – A systematic review. Ecological Indicators, 129, 107815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107815
Natori, Y., & Chenoweth, R. (2008). Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 250-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.002
Paracchini, M. L., Correia, T. P., Loupa-Ramos, I., Capitani, C., & Madeira, L. (2016). Progress in indicators to assess agricultural landscape valuation: how and what is measured at different levels of governance. Land Use Policy, 53, 71-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.025
Rattanawaraha, C. (2023). Sustainable agriculture (Teaching publications). Department of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Sukhothai Thammathiraj University. (in Thai)
Schirpke, U., Altzinger, A., Leitinger, G., & Tasser, E. (2019). Change from agricultural to touristic use: Effects on the aesthetic value of landscapes over the last 150 years. Landscape and Urban Planning, 187, 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.004
Soliva, R., Bolliger, J., & Hunziker, M. (2010). Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landscape Research, 35(6), 671-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2010.519436
Swanwick, C. (2002). Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency; Scottish Natural Heritage. https://digital.nls.uk/pubs/e-monographs/2020/216649977.23.pdf
Termansen, M., Jacobs, S., Pandit, R., Mwampamba, T. H., Dendoncker, N., Schaafsma, M., Contreras, V., González-Jiménez, D., Gundimeda, H., Lee, H., Filyushkina, A., Huambachano, M., Palomo, I., & Castro, A. J. (2023). Five steps towards transformative valuation of nature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 64, 101344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101344
UNESCO. (2009). United Nations Educational, Scienific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and World Heritage Convention. https://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/agriculture%20landscape
van Berkel, D. B., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecological Indicators, 37, 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025
van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Hein, L., & de Groot, R. S. (2012). Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 21, 110-122. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.012
van Zanten, B. T., Zasada, I., Koetse, M. J., Ungaro, F., Häfner, K., & Verburg, P. H. (2016). A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services, 17, 87-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.011
Weissteiner, C. J., García-Feced, C., & Paracchini, M. L. (2016). A new view on EU agricultural landscapes: Quantifying patchiness to assess farmland heterogeneity. Ecological Indicators, 61, 317-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.032
Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., & Swinton, S. M. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture [Article]. Ecological Economics, 64(2), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024