144 J. Kuiper Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 143–156
Table 1 Criteria for the quality of the cultural environment
5 Psychology 6 Physiognomy
Appreciation of the landscape Landscape assessment
5.1 Compliance to the natural environment 6.1 Diversity of landscape components
a
, reflecting relationships between land use and abiotic features, like:
5.2 Good use of the landscape’s potential utility diversity of landscape types per country
5.3 Presence of ‘naturalness’ diversity of landscape units per landscape type
5.4 A rich and fair provision of sensory qualities: diversity of elements per landscape unit
colors, smells, sounds diversity of species per bio-tope
5.5 Experiences of unity such as: 6.2 Coherence among landscape components reflecting their order in the:
completeness hydrological system source, brook, river
wholeness infrastructure local road, main road, highway
spaciousness farming system
ecological network 5.6 Experienced historicity
6.3 Continuity of land use and spatial arrangement, as expression of time like: presence of elements of cultural history
duration and continuity of land use and spatial order 5.7 Presence of cyclical developments like:
presumed future sustainability the seasons
growth cycles 5.8 Careful management of the landscape:
the level of maintenance
a
Description of landscape components: a landscape element consists of homogenous soil features, land use and spatial appearance hedge, watercourse, road; a landscape pattern refers to the pattern of one type of elements road-, planting-, ditch pattern; a landscape
unit consist of similar hydrological and soil features, similar land use and a similar spatial arrangement of landscape elements and patterns; a landscape type consists of corresponding geomorphological origin and consists of several landscape units.
An international group of researchers, of differ- ent disciplines, named Concerted Action exchanged
methods and criteria concerning landscape quality in workshops and checked the criteria by visiting farms
in nine European Countries.
During the visits two kinds of criteria appeared, some more subjective and some more objective. There-
fore, two sets of validation were proposed, non-expert and expert criteria.
The group saw small farms 4 ha, large farms 270 ha, organic mixed farms and rather specialized
farms, farms in rural areas and those on the fringe of expanding cities. The visits to the farms took
2–3 h and were accompanied by the farmer and local experts.
2. Method
The criteria were ordered in a table consisting of six columns. The columns 1 and 2 are related to the
abioticbiotic aspects, the columns 3 and 4 to the eco- nomicsocial aspects and the columns 5 and 6 to the
cultural aspects. This article examines the criteria for the quality of
the cultural environment in columns 5 and 6 Table 1, named landscape quality.
To evaluate the quality of the cultural environment Concerted Action used both non-expert and expert
values. The non-expert values of column 5, derived from
psychological principles Coeterier, 1996, contains criteria for the appreciation of the present local land-
scape of the farm by users and inhabitants. The expert values of column 6, derived from Phys-
iognomyGeographyLandscape architecture Lynch, 1960; Vroom, 1968; Kuiper, 1994; Kuiper and van
Mansvelt, 1999 contents criteria for landscape as- sessment, including cultural history and an imaginable
future. The expert is presumed to know about the cul- tural history of each landscape type at stake, about the
features of the surrounding landscape of the farm and to have an idea of an ‘ideal’ landscape under those
conditions.
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
