Object structure

Recent changes of the visual quality of rural landscape: Case study of Slovak-Austrian borderland


Geographia Polonica Vol. 89 No. 4 (2016)


Nováková, Gabriela ; Šebo, Dušan



Place of publishing:


Date issued/created:



24 cm

Type of object:


Subject and Keywords:

rural landscape ; visual quality ; perception of diversity ; Slovak-Austrian borderland


This paper examines the aesthetic consequences of recent changes in the rural landscape of Slovak-Austrian borderland. By the use of panoramic pictures and their photomontage we focused on landscape structure, abandonment, suburban fabric and the presence of wind turbines in the rural landscape. A secondary aim of the study was also to recognize some factors behind the different perception preferences. Above all we would like to draw attention to the issue of aesthetic qualities of rural landscape.


1. Arriaza M., Ca-as-Ortega J.F. Ca-as-Madue-o, J.A. Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 115-125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029 -
2. Bell, S., 2004. Elements of visual design in the landscape. Second edition. New York: Spon Press, https://www.moodle.uevora.pt/1314/pluginfile.php/46413/mod_resource/content/1/simon%20bell.pdf [5 May 2016].
3. Benjamin K., Bouchard A., Domon G., 2007. Abandoned farmlands as components of rural landscapes: An analysis of perceptions and representations. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 228-244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.009 -
4. Bishop I.D., Miller D.R., 2007. Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: The influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renewable Energy, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 814-831.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.03.009 -
5. Cetkovský S, Nováková E., 2009. Assessment of the impact of wind turbines on landscape character: Implication for landscape planning. Moravian Geographical Reports, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 28−34.
6. Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention: Florence: 20.10.2000. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing,
7. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/landscape/Publications/Convention-TxtRef_en.pdf [10 December 2013].
8. Crawford D., 1994. Using remotely sensed data in landscape visual quality assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 30, no. 1-2, pp. 71-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)90068-X -
9. Culek M., 2007. Vybrané problémy větrných elektráren. Aktuální problémy ochrany krajinného rázu 2007. Praha: ČVUT v Praze a Zahradnická fakulta MZLU v Lednici, 2008, pp. 26-35.
10. Daniel T.C, 2001. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 54, no. 1-4, pp. 267-281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4 -
11. Dakin S., 2003. There's more to landscape than meets the eye: Towards inclusive landscape assessment in resource and environmental management. Canadian Geographer, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 185-200.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0064.t01-1-00003 -
12. Dramstad W.E., Sundli Tveit M., Fjellstad W.J., Fry G.L.A., 2006. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 465-474.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006 -
13. Eurostat, 2010. Agricultural census 2010 – provisional results. Eurostat: Statistics explained, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Agricultural_census_2010_-_provisional_results [20 June 2016].
14. Frantál, B., Kučera P., 2009. Impacts of the operation of wind turbines as perceived by residents in concerned areas. Moravian Geographical Reports, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 35-45.
15. IEA, 2010. Austria-annual report. International Energy Agency, http://www.ieawind.org/annual_reports_PDF/2010/Austria.pdf [20 June 2016].
16. Jorgensen A., 2011. Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aesthetics research. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 353-355.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.023 -
17. Keisteri T., 1990. The study of changes in cultural landscapes. Fenia, vol. 168, no. 1, pp. 31-115
18. Krueger A.D., Parsons G.R. Firestone J., 2012. Valuing the visual disamenity of offshore wind power projects at varying distances from the shore: An application on the Delaware shoreline. Land Economics, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 268-283.
https://doi.org/10.3368/le.87.2.268 -
19. Ladenburg J., 2009. Visual impact assessment of offshore wind farms and prior experience. Applied Energy, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 380-387.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.05.005 -
20. Lange E., 2001. The limits of realism: Perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 54, no. 1-4, pp. 163−182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00134-7 -
21. Lieskovský J., Kanka R., Bezák P., Štefunková D., Petrovič F., Dobrovodská M., 2013. Driving forces behind vineyard abandonment in Slovakia following the move to a market-oriented economy. Land Use Policy, vol. 32, pp. 356-365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.11.010 -
22. Lewis J.L., 2008. Perceptions of landscape change in a rural British Columbia community. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 49−59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.011 -
23. Lindemann-Matthies P., Briegel R., Schűpbach B., Junge X., 2010. Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 99-109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.015 -
24. Lothian A., 2008. Scenic perceptions of the visual effects of wind farms on South Australian landscapes. Geographical Research, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 196-207.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2008.00510.x -
25. MacDonald D., Crabtree J.R., Wiesinger G., Dax T., Stamou N., Fleury P., Gutierrez Lazpita J., Gibon A., 2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 47-69.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0335 -
26. Marangon F., Tempesta T., 2008. The economic evaluation of the rural landscape in Italy. Paper submitted to the European Consortium on Landscape Economics in the 3rd Workshop on Landscape Economics, Versailles, Paris. 2008. pp. 29-30, http://www.ceep-europe.org/workshop_files/workshop47_116.pdf [14 December 2012]
27. Molnarova K., Sklenicka P., Stiborek J., Svobodova K., Salek M., Brabec E., 2012. Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics. Applied Energy, vol. 92, pp. 269-278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.001 -
28. Ode A., Hagerhall C.M., Sang N., 2010. Analysing visual landscape complexity: Theory and application. Landscape Research, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 111-131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390903414935 -
29. Oťaheľ J., 1999. Visual landscape perception: landscape pattern and aesthetic assessment. Ekologia Bratislava, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 63-74.
30. Oťaheľ J., 2003. Visual quality of the landscape: Approaches to analysis. Ekologia Bratislava, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 150-160.
31. Oťaheľ J., Hlavatá Z., 2010. Krajina a jej vnímanie: prístupy k analýze. Folia Geographica, vol. 40, no. 16, pp. 23-35.
32. Palang H., Printsmann A., Gyuró É.K., Urbanc M., Skowronek E.,Woloszyn W., 2006. The forgotten rural landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe. Landscape Ecology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 347-357.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-004-4313-x -
33. Renting H., Rossing W.A.H., Groot J.C.J., Van der Ploeg J.D., Laurent C., Perraud D., Stobbelaar D.J., Van Ittersum M.K., 2009. Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 90, suppl. 2, pp. 112-123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.014 -
34. Sandler B., Carlson A.A. (eds.), 1982. Environmental aesthetics: Essays in interpretation. Western Geographical Series, 20, Victoria, B.C., Canada: Department of Geography. University of Victoria.
35. Siedentop S., Fina S., 2012. Who sprawls most? Exploring the patterns of urban growth across 26 European countries. Environment and Planning A, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 2765-2784.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a4580 -
36. Silva P.C., Klagge B., 2013. The evolution of the wind industry and the rise of Chinese firms: From industrial policies to global innovation networks. European Planning Studies, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1341-1356.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.756203 -
37. Siwek T., 2011. Percepce geografického prostoru. Praha: Česká geografická společnost.
38. Tempesta T., 2010. The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 258-272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.010 -
39. van der Horst D., 2009. Spatial planning of wind turbines and the limits of "objective" science. Moravian geographical reports, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 46-51.
40. van der Horst D., Vermeylen S., 2011. Spatial scale and social impacts of biofuel production. Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 2435-2443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.029 -
41. Westerberg V., Jacobsen J.B., Lifran R., 2013. The case for offshore wind farm, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French Mediterranean. Tourism Management, vol. 34, 172183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.04.008 -
42. Zhang H., Lin S.H., 2011. Affective appraisal of residents and visual elements in the neighbourhood: A case study in an established suburban community. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 11-21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.12.010 -
43. Zoellner J., Schweizer-Ries P., Wemheuer CH., 2008. Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 4136-4141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.026 -


Geographia Polonica





Start page:


End page:


Resource type:


Detailed Resource Type:



File size 2,4 MB ; application/pdf

Resource Identifier:

0016-7282 ; 10.7163/GPol.0071


CBGiOS. IGiPZ PAN, call nos.: Cz.2085, Cz.2173, Cz.2406 ; click here to follow the link




Creative Commons Attribution BY-SA 3.0 PL license

Terms of use:

Copyright-protected material. [CC BY-SA 3.0 PL] May be used within the scope specified in Creative Commons Attribution BY-SA 3.0 PL license, full text available at: ; -

Digitizing institution:

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Original in:

Central Library of Geography and Environmental Protection. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization PAS

Projects co-financed by:

European Union. European Regional Development Fund ; Programme Innovative Economy, 2010-2014, Priority Axis 2. R&D infrastructure





Citation style: