How Does the Presence of Livestock Influence Landscape Preferences? An Image-Based Approach.




Landscape preferences, Animal geography, Livestock, Rural landscapes, European Landscape Convention


The European Landscape Convention (ELC) emphasises that the public should be extensively involved in the processes of landscape protection, planning and management. In spite of the emerging interest in the relationship between animals and landscapes in the study of animal geography, little is known about the influence of the landscape-animal component on public aspirations and the values attributed to landscape. We conducted a survey in the form of an image-based questionnaire in order to evaluate the influence of certain animal species, in this case livestock, on landscape preferences. The results show that all grazing animals have a positive impact on landscape preferences, although some species seem more popular than others. The preference for scenes with animals decreases, however, when compared with scenes with other landscape features (vegetation, traditional buildings or water). Significant differences in preferences for scenes with animals were observed according to certain sociodemographic variables such as gender, familiarity with the landscape and direct involvement in livestock farming. Of the groups surveyed, livestock farmers showed the strongest preferences for the scenes with animals. The findings of this study can be applied within the citizen participation policies encouraged by the ELC, as well as in the protection, management and planning of rural landscapes in which livestock is an appreciable feature.


Adevi, A. A., & Grahn, P. (2012). Preferences for landscapes: A matter of cultural determinants or innate reflexes that point to our evolutionary background? Landscape Research, 37(1), 27-49. doi:10.1080/01426397.2011.576884

Álvarez-Ibañez, M., Otero-Pastor, I., & Solana-Gutiérrez, J. (1999). Valoración y análisis de preferencias sociales de los distintos conjuntos paisajísticos de la RNC de los ancares (león y lugo). [assessment and analysis of social preferences of different scenic sets of the RNC of ancares (león and lugo)]. Paisaje, Teledetección y SIG.Conceptos y Aplicaciones [Landscape, Remote Sensing and GIS.Concepts and Applications], , 81-158.

Arias-García, J., Serrano-Montes, J. L., & Gómez-Zotano, J. (2016). Fauna in wetland landscapes: A perception approach. Landscape Research, 41(5), 510-523. doi:10.1080/01426397.2015.1081160

Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2011). Exploring the heterogeneity of cultural landscape preferences: A visual-based latent class approach. Landscape Research, 36(1), 19-40. doi:10.1080/01426397.2010.536204

Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J. F., Cañas-Madueño, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 115-125. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029

Barroso, F. L., Pinto-Correia, T., Ramos, I. L., Surová, D., & Menezes, H. (2012). Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: Photo-based questionnaires in the mediterranean context. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(3-4), 329-342. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.005

Barua, M. (2011). Mobilizing metaphors: The popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species concepts. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(7), 1427-1440. doi:10.1007/s10531-011-0035-y

Bastian, O., Krönert, R., & Lipský, Z. (2006). Landscape diagnosis on different space and time scales - A challenge for landscape planning. Landscape Ecology, 21(3 SPEC. ISS.), 359-374. doi:10.1007/s10980-005-5224-1

Bateman, P. W., & Fleming, P. A. (2012). Big city life: Carnivores in urban environments. Journal of Zoology, 287(1), 1-23. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00887.x

Benayas, J. (1992). Paisaje y Educación Ambiental.Evaluación De Cambio De Actitudes Hacia El Entorno,

Benayas, J., Ruiz, J. P., De Lucio, J. V., & Barrios, J. C. (1989). Evaluación de los cambios de preferencias paisajísticas en programas de educación ambiental. Arbor, 518-519, 235-261.

Brassley, P. (1998). On the unrecognized significance of the ephemeral landscape. Landscape Research, 23(2), 119-132. doi:10.1080/01426399808706531

Buijs, A. E., Pedroli, B., & Luginbühl, Y. (2006). From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: Changing social perceptions of the european landscape. Landscape Ecology, 21(3 SPEC. ISS.), 375-389. doi:10.1007/s10980-005-5223-2

Buller, H. (2014). Animal geographies I. Progress in Human Geography, 38(2), 308-318. doi:10.1177/0309132513479295

Buller, H. (2015). Animal geographies II: Methods. Progress in Human Geography, 39(3), 374-384. doi:10.1177/0309132514527401

Buller, H. (2016). Animal geographies III: Ethics. Progress in Human Geography, 40(3), 422-430. doi:10.1177/0309132515580489

Cabrera, A. P. (2015). The landscape of the dehesa in the sierra morena of jaén (spain) - the transition from traditional to new land uses. Landscape Online, 43(1), 1-15. doi:10.3097/LO.201543

Carbonero, M. D., & Fernández-Rebollo, P. (2014). Dehesas de encinas. influencia de la meteorología en la producción de bellotas. Ecosistemas, 23(2), 55-63.

Caro, T. (2010). Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone, Flagship, and Other Surrogate Species,

Curado, G., Manzano-Arrondo, V., Figueroa, E., & Castillo, J. M. (2014). Public perceptions and uses of natural and restored salt marshes. Landscape Research, 39(6), 668-679. doi:10.1080/01426397.2013.772960

Díaz Sanz, M. C., & Lozano Valencia, P. J. (2017). The landscapes of pasture in the province of ciudad real. characterization and biogeographic evaluation

Duarte, J., Farfán, M. A., Fa, J. E., & Vargas, J. M. (2015). Deer populations inhabiting urban areas in the south of spain: Habitat and conflicts. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 61(3), 365-377. doi:10.1007/s10344-015-0902-z

Entwistle, A., & Dunstone, N. (2000). Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity: Has the panda had its day? Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity: Has the Panda had its Day?,

Evans, N., & Yarwood, R. (1995). Livestock and landscape. Landscape Research, 20(3), 141-146. doi:10.1080/01426399508706468

Fernández, N. (2011). Landscapes for the iberian lynx: Disentangling effects on habitat suitability in sierra morena. Sierra De Cardeña y Montoro Natural Park: Research, Projects and Studies, , 291-299.

Folmer, A., Haartsen, T., & Huigen, P. P. P. (2013). The role of wildlife in emotional attachment to a nature-based tourism destination. Journal of Ecotourism, 12(3), 131-145. doi:10.1080/14724049.2013.864297

García Pérez, J. D. (2002). Ascertaining landscape perceptions and preferences with pair-wise photographs: Planning rural tourism in extremadura, spain. Landscape Research, 27(3), 297-308. doi:10.1080/01426390220149539

Garzón-García, R. (2005). Algunas implicaciones territoriales de la intervención administrativa en la gestión del parque natural sierra de cardeña y montoro (córdoba) [some territorial implications of administrative involvement in the management of the sierra de cardena y montoro natural park (córdoba)]. Geographicalia, 46, 51-75.

Gómez-Limón, J., & De Lucío Fernández, J. V. (1999). Changes in use and landscape preferences on the agricultural-livestock landscapes of the central iberian peninsula (madrid, spain). Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 165-175. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00020-1

Gorman, R. (2017). Therapeutic landscapes and non-human animals: The roles and contested positions of animals within care farming assemblages. [Paysages thérapeutiques et animaux non-humains: les rôles et positions contestées des animaux dans les assemblages de fermes de soins; Paisajes terapéuticos y animales no-humanos: los roles y las polémicas posiciones de los animales dentro de los montajes de agricultura social] Social and Cultural Geography, 18(3), 315-335. doi:10.1080/14649365.2016.1180424

Grammatikopoulou, I., Pouta, E., Salmiovirta, M., & Soini, K. (2012). Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(2), 181-191. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.001

Hagerhall, C. M. (2000). Clustering predictors of landscape preference in the traditional swedish cultural landscape: Prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(1), 83-90. doi:10.1006/jevp.1999.0150

Hambler, C. (2004). Conservation. Conservation,

Holloway, L., & Morris, C. (2014). Viewing animal bodies: Truths, practical aesthetics and ethical considerability in UK livestock breeding. Social and Cultural Geography, 15(1), 1-22. doi:10.1080/14649365.2013.851264

Hovorka, A. J. (2017). Animal geographies I: Globalizing and decolonizing. Progress in Human Geography, 41(3), 382-394. doi:10.1177/0309132516646291

Hovorka, A. J. (2018). Animal geographies II: Hybridizing. Progress in Human Geography, 42(3), 453-462. doi:10.1177/0309132517699924

Hovorka, A. J. (2019). Animal geographies III: Species relations of power. Progress in Human Geography, 43(4), 749-757. doi:10.1177/0309132518775837

Howley, P. (2011). Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics, 72, 161-169. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026

Howley, P., Donoghue, C. O., & Hynes, S. (2012). Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 66-74. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.006

Hull IV, R. B., & McCarthy, M. M. (1988). Change in the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(3-4), 265-278. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(88)90050-3

Jacobs, M. H. (2009). Why do we like or dislike animals? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(1), 1-11. doi:10.1080/10871200802545765

Jenni-Eiermann, S., Heynen, D., & Schaub, M. (2014). Effect of an ultrasonic device on the behaviour and the stress hormone corticosterone in feral pigeons. Journal of Pest Science, 87(2), 315-322. doi:10.1007/s10340-014-0553-y

Jones, O. (2013). "Who milks the cows at maesgwyn?" the animality of UK rural landscapes in affective registers. Landscape Research, 38(4), 421-442. doi:10.1080/01426397.2013.784246

Jorgensen, A. (2011). Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aesthetics research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(4), 353-355. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.023

Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Association between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(1), 1-11. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2

Kaltenborn, B. P., Bjerke, T., & Nyahongo, J. (2006). Living with problem animals—self-reported fear of potentially dangerous species in the serengeti region, tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11(6), 397-409. doi:10.1080/10871200600984323

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective,

Kellert, S. R., & Berry, J. K. (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 15(3), 363-371.

Knight, A. J. (2008). "Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my!" how aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 94-103. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001

Lange, E., & Bishop, I. (2005). Communication, perception and visualization. Visualization in landscape and environmental planning: Technology and applications (pp. 2-19)

Law, C. S., & Zube, E. H. (1983). Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception. Landscape Research, 8(1), 22-23. doi:10.1080/01426398308706052

Leader-Williams, N., & Dublin, H. T. (2000). Charismatic megafauna as 'flagship species'. Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity: Has the Panda had its Day?, , 53-81.

Lopez-Bote, C. J. (1998). Sustained utilization of the iberian pig breed. Meat Science, 49(SUPPL. 1), S17-S27. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00072-2

Lorimer, J. (2007). Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(5), 911-932. doi:10.1068/d71j

Lorimer, J., & Srinivasan, K. (2013). Animal geographies. The wiley-blackwell companion to cultural geography (pp. 332-342) doi:10.1002/9781118384466.ch29

Lowenthal, D. (2007). Living with and looking at landscape. Landscape Research, 32(5), 635-656. doi:10.1080/01426390701552761

Mealey, L., & Theis, P. (1995). The relationship between mood and preferences among natural landscapes: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(3), 247-256. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(95)00035-J

Múgica, M., & De Lucio, J. V. (1996). The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences. A case study at donana national park (spain). Journal of Environmental Management, 47(3), 229-239. doi:10.1006/jema.1996.0049

Ode, A., Hagerhall, C. M., & Sang, N. (2010). Analysing visual landscape complexity: Theory and application. Landscape Research, 35(1), 111-131. doi:10.1080/01426390903414935

Peltola, T., Heikkilä, J., & Vepsäläinen, M. (2013). Exploring landscape in-the-making: A case study on the constitutive role of animals in society-nature interactions. Landscape Research, 38(4), 461-475. doi:10.1080/01426397.2013.773298

Pietzsch, D., Ochsner, S., Mantilla-Contreras, J., & Hampicke, U. (2013). Low-intensity husbandry as a cost-efficient way to preserve dry grasslands. Landscape Research, 38(4), 523-539. doi:10.1080/01426397.2012.741223

Roe, M. (2013). Animals and landscape. Landscape Research, 38(4), 401-403. doi:10.1080/01426397.2013.829971

Sánchez-Almendro, A. J., Quijada-Muñoz, J., Murcia-Sánchez, E., & Muñoz-álvarez, J. M. (2011). Mapping and evaluation of vegetation in the sierra de cardeña y montoro natural park. Sierra De Cardeña y Montoro Natural Park: Research, Projects and Studies, , 85-103.

Sellick, J., & Yarwood, R. (2013). Placing livestock in landscape studies: Pastures new or out to graze? Landscape Research, 38(4), 404-420. doi:10.1080/01426397.2012.730611

Serrano Montes, J. L. (2017). Fauna in Landscape Studies: Conceptual Approaches, a Methodological Proposal and Practical Application at Three Spatial Scales,

Serrano-Montes, J. L., & Gómez-Zotano, J. (2017). Methodological proposal for the inclusion of fauna in landscape studies. the example of the beach of casasola, malaga (spain). [Propuesta metodológica para la inclusión de la fauna en los estudios de paisaje. El ejemplo de la playa de casasola, Málaga (España)] Boletin De La Asociacion De Geografos Espanoles, 2017(73), 61-76. doi:10.21138/bage.2409

Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2010). The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land use Policy, 27(3), 827-842. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.11.002

Sharp, R. L., Larson, L. R., & Green, G. T. (2011). Factors influencing public preferences for invasive alien species management. Biological Conservation, 144(8), 2097-2104. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.04.032

Simaika, J. P., & Samways, M. J. (2010). Biophilia as a universal ethic for conserving biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 903-906. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01485.x

Soliva, R., Bolliger, J., & Hunziker, M. (2010). Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the swiss alps. Landscape Research, 35(6), 671-696. doi:10.1080/01426397.2010.519436

Stamps III, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71(3 I), 907-913. doi:10.2466/pms.1990.71.3.907

Stewart, T. R., Middleton, P., Downton, M., & Ely, D. (1984). Judgments of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(4), 283-302. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(84)80001-8

Sullivan III, W. C. (1994). Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: Citizen preferences for natural and developed settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29(2-3), 85-101. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)90020-5

Swanwick, C. (2002). Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland,

Syse, K. V. L. (2013). Otters as symbols in the british environmental discourse. Landscape Research, 38(4), 540-552. doi:10.1080/01426397.2013.784244

Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229-255. doi:10.1080/01426390600783269

Tveit, M. S. (2009). Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(9), 2882-2888. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021

Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. The Biophilia Hypothesis, , 73-137.





How to Cite

Serrano-Montes, J. L., Martínez-Ibarra, E., & Arias-García, J. (2019). How Does the Presence of Livestock Influence Landscape Preferences? An Image-Based Approach. Landscape Online, 71.



Research Article