Public preferences for aesthetic qualities of agricultural landscapes across Europe – new research article by Zoltán Bakucs and co-authors in Journal of Rural Studies

Agricultural landscapes are multifunctional social-ecological systems that deliver a wide range of ecosystem services to society. Conceptual frameworks such as the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) distinguish between three categories of ecosystem services, namely provisioning services (e.g., food and fiber production), regulating and maintaining services (e.g., soil formation), and cultural services including non-material benefits such as recreation and landscape aesthetics (CICES, 2018). While extensive research has focused the biophysical benefits of environmentally friendly farming practices – such as improved biodiversity, soil health, and carbon sequestration – the societal co-benefits of these transitions remain less systematically understood. In particular, there is comparatively limited empirical evidence on how citizens perceive and value the aesthetic consequences of ecological farming practices, and whether such preferences are shared across regions and social groups.

Among cultural ecosystem services, landscape aesthetics represent one of the most immediate and tangible ways in which agricultural management affects the general public. Visual landscape quality mediates everyday interactions between people and agricultural land and has been shown to influence psychological well-being and foster positive public attitudes towards land-use policies (Assandri et al., 2018; Csurgó and Smith, 2021; Daniel et al., 2012). Reflecting this importance, landscape aesthetics are explicitly recognized within ecosystem service frameworks and are central to the European Landscape Convention, which defines landscapes as “an area, as perceived by people” and calls for the integration of public perception into landscape policy, planning, and management (Council of Europe Landscape Convention, 2000). In parallel, recent reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) increasingly emphasize the delivery of public goods, including cultural ecosystem services, through agri-environmental and climate measures. Understanding how citizens perceive and value the aesthetic consequences of more environmentally friendly farming practices is therefore directly relevant to European agricultural policy design and legitimacy.

Agricultural landscapes are shaped by a complex interplay between ecological processes, physical geography, and human decision-making. Land-use choices driven by economic performance, topographical constraints, and policy incentives determine the spatial distribution of natural elements such as hedgerows and grasslands, as well as built infrastructure including farm buildings, machinery, and renewable energy installations (Plieninger et al., 2013). As farming systems incorporate more environmentally friendly practices, they not only enhance ecosystem functioning but also alter the visual character of rural landscapes (Fry et al., 2009). For example, diversified cropping systems and reduced mechanisation can create visually and ecologically richer landscapes (Lindemann-Matthies et al., 2010). Similarly, the adoption of renewable infrastructure, such as small-scale wind and solar voltaic installations on farms, alters rural aesthetics while contributing to sustainability and green energy goals (Chel and Kaushik, 2011; Nadaï and van der Horst, 2010).

Public responses to these visual changes are not uniform. While many studies show that visually appealing landscapes foster positive attitudes towards land-use policies (Assandri et al., 2018; Csurgó and Smith, 2021; Daniel et al., 2012), ecological transitions in agriculture can also provoke ambivalent reactions. Practices such as increases landscape diversity or the introduction of renewable energy infrastructure may be interpreted as signs of stewardship and environmental responsibility by some, they may also be perceived as distributive of traditional rural aesthetics and identity (Hevia-Koch and Ladenburg, 2019; Paarlberg, 2023; Tribot et al., 2018). Although a substantial and growing body of literature examines agricultural landscape aesthetics, fewer studies explicitly assess how visual changes associated with environmentally friendly farming practices are valued as co-benefits alongside implicit environmental outcomes, particularly in a cross-geographic comparative approach.

This study aims to fill this gap in the literature by assessing how citizens value the aesthetic dimension of agricultural landscapes shared by varying levels of environmentally friendly management, and by examining how these preferences differ across socio-demographic groups. Using a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE), we estimate preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for landscape characteristics that reflect transitions from intensive conventional practices to more diversified and extensive farming approaches. As public goods, landscapes lack market prices, making stated preference methods particularly suitable for eliciting the trade-offs individuals are willing to make between different landscape attributes and associated costs (Lancsar et al., 2017; Train, 2009). Building on recent applications of image-based DCEs in landscape research (summarized in Appendix A, Table A1), this study employs digitally manipulated images to ensure consistent visual representation of agricultural management practices across study regions and to support respondents in evaluating complex aesthetic trade-offs.

The analysis is conducted across three European regions, namely Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, and the United Kingdom (UK), to examine whether aesthetic preferences for ecologically managed agricultural landscapes are primarily shaped by local socio-cultural and policy contexts or whether more generalizable patterns emerge. The regions differ in agricultural structure, rural planning traditions, and policy frameworks, yet share comparable mixed-livestock landscapes, allowing for meaningful cross-country comparison. This design allows us to test the relevance of landscape aesthetics as a cultural ecosystem service within the context of EU-wide policy instruments such as the CAP, while also identifying potential sources of preference heterogeneity.

Specifically, we address two research questions:

(i) how are aesthetic components of agricultural landscapes associated with more environmentally friendly management practices valued by the public, and

(ii) how do preferences vary across different socio-demographic groups?

By explicitly linking landscape aesthetics to ecological management and policy relevant contexts, this study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the societal co-benefits of sustainable agricultural transitions.