Examples of implementation of the criteria in different regions

J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156 147 parts clearly interconnected. The observer would be well oriented”. Vroom 1986 mentioned the need to be able to identify, to explain and to recognize the landscape. In both disciplines the vertical, horizontal and tem- poral relationships in the landscape have been ana- lyzed for years. Together they cover, what is called, the landscape structure. If a landscape reflects vertical, horizontal and temporal relationships, resulting in di- versity of landscape components, coherence between them and continuity of important components, the ob- server will be able to orientate himself in space and time. The three criteria, diversity, coherence and continu- ity were used as a common basis for the planning ob- jectives with special regard to aesthetic and ecological quality. The first hypothesis states that the factors necessary for landscape quality are: 1. A diversity of landscape elements, landscape pat- terns, landscape units and landscape types, which reflect the vertical relationships between land use and abiotic features with regard to the identity of each component; A diversity of ecosystems, habi- tats and species based on the abiotic conditions. 2. A coherence that reflects the spatial relationships between the landscape components, including their order, in favor of the legibility of the land- scape. 3. A spatial coherence that offers connectivity be- tween similar ecosystems. 4. Continuity of land use of important parts of the landscape in favor of recognisability over time and reflection of cultural history with flexibility of land use in other parts; Continuity of land use and spatial arrangement to enhance the persistence of present and proposed ecosystems. The second hypothesis states that landscape diver- sity should be the result of several coherences and that spatial coherence should lead to landscape diversity. The dialectic of the criterion diversity, considered at different scale levels Kuiper, 1997 indicates the need to evaluate the farms not only at farm level, but also at regional and even at national and international level. The criteria above were used in a former student pilot project to compare organic and adjacent conven- tional farms Stroeken et al., 1993. Table 2 consists of the theoretical questions in mind which accompa- nied the later farm visits of Concerted Action Kuiper, 1994. One visually important decision made by organic farmers is to encourage planting. Planting is important for many abiotic reasons. A careful location of a native planting pattern can improve the aesthetic and ecological quality much more than planting a hedge or some foreign trees on a coincidental location. Some of the planning objectives concerning this aspect, are presented here Sloet van Oldruitenborgh et al., 1990; Kuiper, 1996, 1997: 1. in favor of landscape diversity, planting should be located on sites offering the greatest scope for biodiversity and where the planting accentuates important landscape elements or patterns like wa- tercourses, steeper slopes, ditches, roads; 2. in favor of coherence, planting should be located on sites offering the greatest scope for sustainable connectivity and where the planting reflects the or- der among important landscape elementspatterns watercourse network, road network; 3. in favor of continuity, planting should be located on sites offering chances for long term natural development of a minimum of a 100 years f.i. along watercourses, local roads. Planting along the watercourses of a landscape unit shall not be realized as the sum of coincidental de- cisions at farm level. To implement such a landscape plan, the organic farmers must be willing to adapt their decisions to the plan.

4. Examples of implementation of the criteria in different regions

In this paper the following farm visits are described: 1. Spain, Andalusia, two farms of the Dehesa Land- scape 1995; 2. The Netherlands, an organic farm 18 ha and an adjacent conventional farm and an organic goat farm 9 ha belonging to an estate, 1995; 3. Portugal, small organic horticultural farms 4 ha on the fringe of Lisboa 1996; 4. Crete, an organic farm 35 ha, 1997. The dialectic of the criterion diversity is presented in Section 4.1. The problems encountered in implementing the cri- teria for organic farms that are too small, are described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. 148 J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156 Table 2 Questions to evaluate the contribution of organic farms to landscape quality Questions for non-experts, column 5, Appreciation of the landscape Can the landscape of the organic farm be appreciated more than that of its conventional neighbor? 5.1 What is your appreciation of the natural environment like relief, water, soil and climate? 5.2 What is your appreciation of the land use? 5.3 What is your feeling about the image of ‘naturalness’? 5.4 Do you like the range of sensory information like colors, smells and sounds? are there sensory qualities that are disturbing? 5.5 Do you get a feeling of unity in the landscape? are there landscape components missing completeness? are there landscape components disturbing wholeness? 5.6 Does the landscape give information or a sense about the past? which landscape elements give this information? 5.7 Does the landscape offer you experiences of the seasons? 5.8 Is the landscape well-kept? Questions for experts, column 6, Landscape assessment Does the landscape of the organic farm express better the natural and cultural heritage and present use and meaning than that of its conventional neighbor? 6.1 Landscape diversity Does the diversity of landscape elements express relationships between land use and abiotic features? what is the number of cropsha? what is the diversity of landscape elementsha? are the landscape elements reflecting abiotic features? is the diversity of landscape elements reflecting the abiotic diversity? is the farm landscape typical or exceptional for the landscape unit to which the farm belongs? does the farm landscape contribute to the identity of the landscape unit and type? does the farm landscape contribute to local, regional, national and European diversity? 6.2 Coherence Does the arrangement of landscape components express the order of the spatial relationships? is the farming system legible, in the spatial arrangement? are the hydroecological relationships visible? are climatic influences visible seawind? 6.3 Continuity Does the landscape express the cultural history and is sustainability likely? for how many years have the continuity of the farming system and the spatial arrangement been in existence? were the changes of the farming system from conventional to organic gradual or abrupt and dominant? do landscape elements reflect the cultural and natural history present? is the farm recognizable to how it was 25 years ago? are there trends which threaten the sustainability of this farming system? Discussions between two subgroups of Concerted Action about the landscape quality of different ways of managing olive yards and problems with the contri- bution of additional planting to landscape quality, are described in Section 4.4. 4.1. Implementation of the criteria in Andalusia In Andalusia a traditional organic and a conven- tional farm were visited. They both belonged to the Dehesa landscape type, which extends for hundreds of square km. The landscape of the traditional farm 1 consisted of sparsely wooded hills with solitary pruned oaks Quercus rotundifolia and other species of Quercus genus, about 50 per ha, in a Mediter- ranean climate Fig. 1. The farm had been produc- ing an excellent quality bacon from pigs fed with acorns for over a thousand years. In addition sheep had been grazing on the crops under the tree canopy Table 3. J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156 149 Fig. 1. Dehesa farming system of pruned solitary oaks in Andalusia, Spain. The landscape of farm 2 is completely deforested and was transformed 75 years ago into large open crop fields without any planting. Over the last few years, it has been intensively grazed by sheep, this practice encouraged by EU subsidy for each sheep farmed. The visit to these farms was in 1995 and at that time the criteria of the columns 5 and 6 were still mixed. Many kinds of sensory qualities were perceived on the traditional Dehesa farm. The sparse wood is rich with herb fragrances. Many kinds of bird songs could be heard. The appreciation of the traditional farm was great, its landscape was attractive and inviting, pro- viding sun and shade. The landscape of the traditional farm expressed the natural and cultural heritage very well. The differences in exposition and slope are em- phasized by a diversity of oak species and by differ- ences in the density of the tree planting. Each pruned oak has its own characteristics Fig. 2. Negative perceptions appeared in the transformed conventional farm such as feeling exposed to all ex- treme weather conditions. At that moment in May it was bare land without any flowers or animals. On the steepest slopes erosion was visible. There were no landscape elements except a refuge on the top of a hill and little landscape diversity. There was no apprecia- tion at all for this transformed farm. Its landscape did not express the fine abiotic diversity nor the cultural history. Though the relief of the hills was better visi- ble because of the openness. It is a remarkable fact that the traditional Dehesa farm contributes to European and National diversity of landscape types, but at the moment not to regional landscape diversity. The original Dehesa landscape is monotonous for the walker or cyclist. It is possi- ble to bike for days in the same, closed landscape without having a panoramic view. The transformed conventional farm with its open landscape does not contribute to European or National diversity of land- scape types, but provides an exceptional panoramic view to the tourists and therefore diversity within the Dehesa landscape, as far as there are still just a few of these open landscapes. The sustainability of the traditional Dehesa farm- ing system is endangered by changes in society. The living apart, by the farmers, from their families and villages, for a great part of the year has become less accepted. The sustainability of the transformed farm is endan- gered by erosion due to over-grazing. It would be a challenge to experiment with organic farming systems in this landscape. Santos and Remmers 1997 pro- posed a new farming system. They proposed, among other things to locate planting and nature development along hydrological landscape elements like brooks, along the local road network and on sites less usable 150 J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156 Table 3 Results of the implementation of the criteria in Andalusia, May 1995 Evaluation of a traditional organic and a conventional farm in the Dehesa landscape type: farm 1 276 ha, Las Chozas in Fuente-Obejuna, consists of the traditional Dehesa farming system with a tree canopy of solitaire, pruned oaks farm 2 100 ha in the Sierra Morena is completely deforested and transformed 75 years ago into large open fields without any planting and has been overgrazed by sheep over the last few years because of EU subsidy for each sheep In this list the expert and non-expert criteria for landscape quality are still combined Farm 1 Farm 2 1 What is the amount of different sensory experiences? high low 2 What is the impression of the ‘Genius Loci’ attractive sad protecting exposed What is the sensory quality? good bad 3a What is the intensity of the human involvement? ++ −− 3b Does the landscape inspire involvement? ++ −− 4a To which landscape type does this farm belong? Dehesa Dehesa 4b What is the internal diversity of landscape elements per ha? ++ − 4c Does the landscape diversity reflect the abiotic diversity; Does the tree species selection, the pattern and density of the trees and the pruning form reflect the slope, soil, hydrologic features? ++ − 4d Does the farm contribute to the identity of the Dehesa landscape type? ++ − 4e Does the farm contribute to the landscape diversity within the Dehesa landscape type in favor of recreation activities? − + 4f Does the farm contribute to European cultural landscape diversity? ++ − 5a Does the spatial arrangement reflect the order and meaning of the landscape elements; is the location of villages along streams and stables on top of the hills consistent? + + 5b Is the farming system legible? ++ − 5c Does the spatial arrangement reflect cultural and ecological relations? + − 6a For how many years has the continuity of the farming system and the spatial arrangement been in existence? 1000 75 6b Is the farm recognisable to how it was 25 years before? yes yes 6c Is sustainability of land use predictable? no no 6d Were the changes in land use and spatial organization abrupt and dominant? no yes 6e Is the original vegetation imaginable? yes no for agriculture. The planting should emphasize these sites and improve the ecological quality. 4.2. Implementation in the Netherlands The evaluation was made for 1 an organic and a conventional farm on a transition zone from dune to polder landscape and for 2 an organic farm belonging to an estate on the fringe of a town. 4.2.1. The organic mixed farm of 18 ha ‘Noorderhoeve’ near Schoorl and its adjacent conventional farm These farms are situated on the transition zone from dune to polder landscape and consist of a great va- riety of abiotic features. From old maps it is known that these transition zones consist of the most fine grained diversity of landscape elements. In the Nether- lands these transition zones were known for the rich- ness of species. On the organic farm a greater diversity of land use and of landscape elements linear plant- ing elements, hedges and many ditches was found compared to the conventional farm. Also, there was a strong relationship between land use and abiotic fea- tures Stroeken, 1994. The spatial arrangement on the organic farm consisted of spaces of different kinds and size. The fine grained landscape of the organic farm reflected well the abiotic variety of this transition zone and of the integrated farming system. The spaciousness of the conventional farm consisted only of the farm yard and of large scale monotonous J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156 151 Fig. 2. One of the solitary oaks of the Dehesa landscape. fields. This expressed well the conventional farming system but did not express the fine abiotic variety. Organic mixed farms, situated in such a fine grained transition zone, have a greater chance to contribute more to landscape diversity than conventional farms. 4.2.2. The organic goat farm ‘Capricas’ 9 ha near Ede This farm is a part of an estate on the fringe of the town Ede. The checklist was difficult to answer. “On the Capricas farm, seasonal aspects and ecologi- cal quality are not very pronounced” Hendriks et al., 1997. The goat farm consisted of open fields. It is surrounded by woods, which belongs to the estate. It is difficult to say in this research whether for instance birds are present because of the surrounding woods, because this is an open space in the woods or because this is an organic goat farm. On the other hand, ‘the farm complies very well to the objectives set for the development of the estate’. This farm is too small to be distinguishable from the features of the estate and from adjacent conventional farms. The characteristics of the estate dominated those of the particular farm. In small organic farms in the Netherlands for in- stance questions about sensory qualities were difficult to answer. To perceive fine odors can be difficult due to the smell of the bio-industry of the adjacent farms. 4.3. Implementation in Portugal The evaluation of the small organic horticultural farms 4 ha suffered the same problems as already mentioned. In addition the sustainability of these farms on the fringe of the expanding city Lisboa is doubt- ful. Only a very strong government and cooperation of several organic farmers will be able to achieve sus- tainable landscape quality. The attention to the hydro- logical system and the restoration of old stone wells was positive. 4.4. Implementation on Crete On Crete the hills mainly consist of old high stem olive groves and the plains of young low stem olive groves. The farms are in the villages. On the top of the hills there are shelters for the laborers Tables 4 and 5. The checklist was made for an organic olive farm of 35 ha around the top of a hill. Thirty years ago this mixed farm was converted into a specialized organic farm without husbandry or shepherds. Fires had burnt the old high stem olive trees of this farm, so mainly the farm consisted of young low stem olive trees. Some of the old farm- houses were restored. 152 J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156 Table 4 Results of the implementation of the non-expert criteria on Crete Evaluation of the quality of the cultural environment of an organic farm of 35 ha around a top of a hill near Phaistos on Crete. On the top of the hill there is only a shelter for the labourers, the farm is in the village. The mixed farming system were discontinued Main question: is the landscape of the organic farm appreciated more than that of adjacent conventional farms? + 5.1 What is your appreciation of the natural environment? ++ on the top of the hill one has an excellent overview over the plains and other hills 5.2 What is your appreciation of the land use, utility? + the land use consists mainly of young low stem olive groves 5.3 Does the farm give a feeling of ‘naturalness’? old trees are missing the tops of hills and steep slopes are not in use and give a feeling of ‘naturalness’ 5.4 Do you like the range of sensory experiences? ++ there are a lot of different colors of flowers along the road verges, pleasing smells and a variety of bird song within the olive groves some other tree species have been planted for biodiversity + on the top of the hill near the shelter for the laborers there is a pleasing panorama ++ Are there any sensory experiences that are disturbing? outside the shelter there is no place to sit in the shade − 5.5 Unity. Do you get a feeling of unity, do the parts fit together? Completeness; are all appropriate elements present? Water and husbandry are missing − Wholeness, are there non-fitting elements? There is too much rubbish that has been left 5.6 Historicity. Does the farm landscape give information about the past? partly, due to some restored farm houses + terraces of former ages were leveled − 5.7 Cyclical development. Are natural cycles visible? the season was only visible on the road verges and on the flowering olive trees Are maintenance cycles visible? + yes by pruning, harvesting etc, but this could be more visible in an olive grove with undergrowth and grazing 5.8 Do you get a feeling of a well kept landscape? the maintenance is too machine dominated, and there is too much rubbish lying around The appreciation of the farm scored rather well also because of the excellent situation around the top of a hill. In the olive yards on Crete different kinds of man- agement were distinguished: 1. a short grass vegetation by grazing under the high stem olive trees; 2. bare land by ploughing under high and low stem olive trees Fig. 3; 3. a high spontaneous herb vegetation of different species under the trees Fig. 4; 4. seeded clovers between the rows of olive trees. These different kinds of management effect erosion, species richness, social life and visual experiences. The different olive yards Olea Europea varieties lead to discussions between two subgroups of Concerted Action, because the aesthetic quality of management types 2, 3 and 4 did not coincide with the abiotic quality. The old high stem olive yards 1 with grazing un- derneath are protected against erosion and consist of the most healthy and fertile soil in comparison to the other kinds of management. They also consist of the most species and the most coherent diversity of visual perceptions. Aesthetic and ecological quality are both high. In olive yards 1 and 2 the geomorphological re- lief forms, the characteristic old stems and the shadow contrasts of the olive trees on the soil are visible. The tree crown, the stems and the grass form three distin- guishing layers. The colors of the yellow grass or the soil match well to the greengrey olive trees. These olive yards have been a source of inspiration to artists such as Vincent van Gogh and are at present often used by advertisement companies to promote sales of olive oil. In olive yards 3 and 4 the herb vegetation layer merges with the tree crown layer and the above given perceptions are impossible. The subgroup of the J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156 153 Table 5 Results of the implementation of the expert criteria on Crete Main question: does the landscape of the organic farm better express the natural and cultural heritage and present use and meaning than that of adjacent conventional farms? + 6.1 Diversity. Does the diversity of landscape components express the relationship between use and abiotic features? 6.1.1 Does the diversity of types of land use reflect the different geomorphological units at regional level? No, − both in the plain and on the hills low olive groves are dominant. One should expect more diversity of crops in the plain, which is usable for more different crops and where ‘following the market’ would be reasonable 6.1.2 Does the diversity of landscape elements reflect the abiotic diversity on the farm? ++ on the top of the hills and on steep slopes natural sites were preserved 6.1.3 Is there any difference between the fields of a similar land use type? + the diversity of olive groves reflect man’s choises of cultivars, pruning, and undergrowth, not the abiotic diversity 6.1.4 What is the diversity of visual information in one field? in olive groves with a short grass vegetation, you can distinguish the tree crown layer, the stems and the ++ species rich grass layer. There are shade contrasts and a view of the geomorpholigical forms in olive groves with bare land underneath one can distinguish the same visual perceptions ++ in olive groves with high undergrowth the crown and undergrowth layer merge and are not distinguishable, − one misses the stems and the shade contrasts in olive groves with a low legume vegetation one has more visual information than in groves with high undergrowth + 6.2 Coherence. Does the arrangement of landscape components reflect horizontal relationships? + Is the occupation pattern legible? ++ the place of the laborers refuge on the top of the hill is functional, many tops consist of buildings is the hydrological system, legible? − is the parceling system legible? − Does the planting pattern reflect important elements? the fragmented planting of Cypresses only reflect the borderline of the farm property at one moment in time 6.3 Continuity. Does the arrangement of landscape elements reflect the temporal relationships? Does the farming system reflect traditions? No − Were the changes gradual? No they were abrupt and also caused by fires − Are elements or patterns of different historical periods visible? the terraces of former ages were leveled. The nut trees on the terrace slopes disappeared. The mixed farming system were discontinued. There had been a dominant abrupt change by converting from mixed farming into specialized organic farming without husbandry Fires caused the disappearance of the high old olive trees. All the fields look of about one age, only rare species on the road verges expressed continuity Is future sustainability possible? the sustainability of the olive groves with bare land is endangered by erosion abiotic and biotic aspects preferred any undergrowth above bare land. Like the conventional farmers also the organic farm- ers had olive yards in the plains, probably due to subsidies. Olive yards 3 and 4 are in majority on the organic farms of Crete. In the low stem olive yards goat and sheep would damage the trees. The traditional way of combining high stem olive trees and husbandry, which have the best effects for the criteria of the abiotic, biotic and cultural environment, tends to vanish. This is because of changes in society. The farmers are very content not to have to care continuously for grazing animals anymore. Their social life is improved. The organic farmer added other tree species on this farm to improve diversity. The question rises whether the added planting contributes to sustainable landscape quality. The layman might say that the linear planting of Cypresses Cupressus sempervirens among the olive yards Figs. 3 and 4 is pleasing, from some view points, and good for the diversity of tree species, but the landscape architect did not like the location of the Cypresses. They had been planted the wrong way on the hill slope and it was investigated that they had been planted along the property border at a particular time but that the size of the property had been undergo- ing continual change. This planting did not contribute 154 J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156 Fig. 3. Olive yard on Crete with bare underground and added Cypressus planting. Fig. 4. Olive yard on Crete with herb vegetation and added Cypressus planting. to sustainable landscape quality. It did not reflect an important landscape element. A planting aligning an important landscape element like an old local road, a crest, or a brook will have more chance to improve durable aesthetic and ecological qualities than an in- discriminate planting. The organic farmer also added some scattered fruit trees between the olive yards. The fruit trees add, lo- cally, colors and smells, but do not result in a distinc- tive landscape element that contributes to aesthetic or ecological quality.

5. Evaluation of landscape quality