J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156 145
The subgroup of Concerted Action dealing with cul- tural aspects, checked if these criteria were applicable
to the visited farms. In this article some examples of the implementation of the criteria are shown and some
problems, which appeared.
To evaluate the contribution of organic farms to landscape quality organic and adjacent conventional
farms in the same landscape unit were compared. To formulate general standards for the criteria de-
termining the quality of the cultural environment is not without problems, and even impossible in some
cases. It is not reasonable to make EU regulations out of these criteria. For example, the need for ‘natural-
ness’, for landscapes which reflect a suggestion of be- ing rather natural, not only depends on the landscape
of the country at stake, but also on the observer. The ideas about nature of most urban citizens are quite dif-
ferent from the ideas of farmers.
A standard for a particular number of smells also does not seem rational. Not everybody by nature or
training is able to distinguish the same amount of odors. At most, one standard could be, the avoidance
of pervasive bad smells. Aesthetic demands for any length or surface of hedges per area or for a particular
amount of trees and woodlots are not adequate for all Dutch or European landscapes. Neither is a standard
for diversity. More diversity of landscape elements in each landscape type does not result in more diversity
of landscape types Kuiper, 1997.
So we decided to introduce questions to evaluate the contribution of organic farms to landscape quality.
A main question for the non-expert values was whether the landscape of the organic farms could be
appreciated more than that of the adjacent conven- tional farms. A main question for the expert values
was whether the landscape of the organic farms better express the natural and cultural heritage and present
use and meaning than the landscape of the adja- cent conventional landscape. A more concrete item
was the evaluation of additional planting on organic farms. This raised the question of whether planting
automatically contributes to landscape quality?
3. Criteria for the quality of the cultural environment
The appearance of a landscape is rather vulnerable. Landscapes have many powerful aggressors farming,
tourism urban development, war and only a few pow- erless defenders. “But whatever the urban accessories,
our longing for the country is real: it is a genuine de- sire for the natural rather than the man-made”. “We
want our cities more leafy, our suburbs more coun- trified, our countryside wilder — all our landscapes,
in fact, transposed from the man-made towards the natural”. Fairbrother, 1974. It is not nature which is
wanted, but an image of nature, by Coeterier called naturalness.
The landscape has an important influence on the welfare and well-being of people and their ability to
survive in a society at large. The landscape is a physical environment of ob-
jective measurable attributes. Apart from physical features, landscape has inter-subjective qualities per-
ceived and valued by people. And as cultural and aesthetic values of observers change over time, the
images and values of landscapes change over time too Vos and Fresco, 1994. For the assessment of the
cultural environment we propose to use two sets of criteria. The first set of column 5 refers primarily to
the appreciation of rural landscape by its users and inhabitants, the so-called non-expert validation. This
set is based on criteria derived from landscape psy- chology that systematically identified aspects of the
landscape, which its users observe and appreciate or depreciate Coeterier, 1996.
The second set of criteria refers to expert validation and is mainly derived from physiognomy, geography
and landscape architecture Kuiper, 1998. The expert is presumed to know about the cultural history of each
landscape at stake, for instance by using old maps, by reading the features of the surrounding landscape
of the farm and by imagining a picture of ‘an ideal landscape’ under the chosen conditions.
3.1. Non-expert values of column 5 Appreciation of the rural landscapes as sponta-
neously experienced by all participants is important for the population as well as for the landscape’s sus-
tainable development. For all participants, farmers, inhabitants, tourists and people who need to recover
from stress, mental or physical diseases, there should be places and possibilities in the landscape to feel
comfortable, at home, secure, inspired and empowered
146 J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156
to relax, recover, or otherwise be efficiently engaged in professional activities.
The criteria used in column 5 have been developed by Coeterier 1996. Coeterier, through interviewing
inhabitants in a research that covered a period of 20 years, collected, made an inventory of and system-
ized a wide range of criteria that reflect the public’s landscape appreciation. From sociological research
Volker, 1997, it has become clear that the apprecia- tion is not only important for the public’s well-being,
but also for the sustainable management of that land- scape. People are willing to contribute to the man-
agement, be it financially or by investing private time and energy, but only insofar as they feel appreciation,
pleasure and compassion for that landscape.
Eight main criteria have been distinguished with respect to the appreciation of the landscape Table 1.
5.1 Compliance to the natural environment The aim here is to emphasize the importance of
abiotic features, such as geomorphology, relief, soil and water and show how these are the very foundations
of the landscape determining all kinds of land-uses, actions and perceptions.
5.2 Good use of the landscape’s potential utility The aim here is the clear visibility of a legitimate
use of all functional aspects of the landscape, accord- ing to society’s demands and the region’s carrying
capacity. To achieve an appreciated landscape, Fairbrother
1974 mentions that ‘landscape is essentially the physical expression of land use and it is with good
land use that we have to begin’. 5.3 Presence of ‘naturalness’
The aim here is to encourage a landscape which evokes the suggestion of being not totally man-made,
a landscape in which some of the natural heritage has been respected. At the moment societies’ demands for
strong feelings of ‘naturalness’ seem to be greatest in the European countries with the highest external in-
put and most intensive agriculture. The presence of non-productive sites, old trees, and dominance of nat-
ural lines, patterns and materials over artificial ones are important parameters.
5.4 A rich and fair provision of sensory qualities The aim here is to emphasize the importance of a
wide and diverse range of appreciated, recuperative and inspiring sensory qualities and removing those
that are known to be intrusive and stress inducing. 5.5 Experiences of unity
The aim here is to emphasize the importance of ex- periencing the landscape as a whole, with all parts
fitting together. Unity implies an added value, that none of the single parts possess. Completeness refers
to the presence of all the appropriate elements, that usually belong to that landscape. Wholeness is as-
sessed through the absence of non-fitting, disturbing elements.
5.6 Experienced historicity The aim is to respect the cultural heritage and to em-
phasize how necessary it is for the landscape to contain elements out of different periods of cultural history.
5.7 Presence of cyclical development The aim here is to emphasize the importance of the
sensory attributes of the change of seasons reflecting the natural order of creation. Other parameters are
succession of bio-topes and landscape maintenance cycles.
5.8 Careful management of the landscape The aim here is a well-kept landscape. The ‘nice
and tidy’ approach of modern farms would fit into this criterion, but can indicate over-management. On the
other hand, organic farms with more room for natu- ral plants weeds and wild animals can fit into this
criterion too.
3.2. Expert values of column 6 The three criteria used in column 6 were developed
in a long term research project reflecting landscape plans, at different scale levels in the river area of the
Netherlands Kuiper, 1998. A short summary of this research is presented here.
Many landscape-ecology theories have been pub- lished about the best physical features and spatial
arrangements for species diversity, for connectivity between ecosystems and for their persistence Forman
and Godron, 1986; Soulé and Simberloff, 1986.
In landscape architecture, the orientation of people in space and time has been considered as an important
aspect of the aesthetic landscape quality. It is said to add some feeling of security.
Lynch 1960 used the criteria identity, legibility and recognizability as parts of the landscape structure. “A
highly imageable city could be apprehended over time as a pattern of high continuity with many distinctive
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
