Spatial Differentiation of Landscape Values in the Murray River Region of Victoria, Australia

Abstract

This research advances the understanding of the location of perceived landscape values through a statistically based approach to spatial analysis of value densities. Survey data were obtained from a sample of people living in and using the Murray River region, Australia, where declining environmental quality prompted a reevaluation of its conservation status. When densities of 12 perceived landscape values were mapped using geographic information systems (GIS), valued places clustered along the entire river bank and in associated National/State Parks and reserves. While simple density mapping revealed high value densities in various locations, it did not indicate what density of a landscape value could be regarded as a statistically significant hotspot or distinguish whether overlapping areas of high density for different values indicate identical or adjacent locations. A spatial statistic Getis-Ord Gi* was used to indicate statistically significant spatial clusters of high value densities or "hotspots". Of 251 hotspots, 40% were for single non-use values, primarily spiritual, therapeutic or intrinsic. Four hotspots had 11 landscape values. Two, lacking economic value, were located in ecologically important river red gum forests and two, lacking wilderness value, were near the major towns of Echuca-Moama and Albury-Wodonga. Hotspots for eight values showed statistically significant associations with another value. There were high associations between learning and heritage values while economic and biological diversity values showed moderate associations with several other direct and indirect use values. This approach may improve confidence in the interpretation of spatial analysis of landscape values by enhancing understanding of value relationships.

The observed landscape: map of visible landscape values in the province of Enna (Italy)

“…In particular, values often directly referr to the "visual resonance" of landscape. Hence, most existing value assessment approaches tend to focus on concepts such as landscape beauty or observable landscape quality (Schmid, 2001;Arriaza et al, 2004;Dramstad et al, 2006;Jessel, 2006;Zhu et al, 2010) and community preferences mapping (Dakin, 2003;Brown, 2006;Raymond and Brown, 2006). However, a generalised assessment of landscape values cannot be proposed, since the evaluation model, together with chosen indices or parameters, need to be strictly correlated with the aim of the model itself.…”

Physical landscape associations with mapped ecosystem values with implications for spatial value transfer: An empirical study from Norway

“…For example, value typologies have been variously described as landscape values (Alessa et al, 2008;Brown, 2005;Zhu, et al, 2010), landscape services (Fagerholm et al, 2012), place values (Brown and Reed, 2012), community values (Raymond et al, 2009), social values for ecosystem services (Sherrouse et al, 2011;van Riper et al, 2012), or simply social values (Bryan et al, 2010). In practice, participatory mapping typologies disproportionately contain values associated with cultural ecosystem services as described in the MEA (2005).…”

A GIS Framework for Changing Cropping Pattern Under Different Climate Conditions and Irrigation Availability Scenarios

“…Fukalova and Pokladnikova (2010) used GIS to analyze land use development in the cadastral area of Zabcice from 1950 to present. GIS was used to help understand the location of perceived landscape values through spatial analysis in Murray River Region of Victoria, Australia (Zhu et al 2010). Some studies on GIS and cropping optimization models were also carried out in Murrumbidgee valley.…”