Aesthetic evaluation of agricultural crops by the population

The upkeep of the agricultural landscape and conservation of natural resources are public services which, within the context of a multifunctional agricultural sector, form part of the remit of agriculture as defined in the Swiss Federal Constitution. More and more often, compensation for public services is provided by direct payments. This applies, for example, for the upkeep of ecological compensation areas which were introduced to preserve and promote biodiversity. Not only do ecological compensation areas (ECAs) influence biodiversity; they also alter the appearance of the landscape. An attractive landscape is highly important for both recreation and tourism as well as for the identification of the population with its environment. To date, little is known on how ECAs are perceived by the population. [...] The results show that the seasons exert a strong influence on the appreciation of landscape elements: in general, the flowering stages of the individual landscape elements were preferred. This effect was especially marked for the ecological compensation areas, which exhibited a greater variety of flowers over a longer period. For this reason, ecological compensation areas were rated higher in the time-weighted average than traditional agricultural crops. By contrast, brown landscape elements were rated lower, irrespective of landscape-element type. On average, ‘farmers’ rated traditional agricultural crops higher and ecological compensation areas lower than the ‘population’. This difference was statistically significant for certain crops as well as certain ecological compensation areas. At the landscape level, landscapes with a growing proportion of ecological compensation areas were rated higher, especially by the ‘population’. For farmers, the growing proportion of ecological compensation areas only inspired a higher rating of the landscape in the case of landscapes dominated by grassland. For landscapes with arable farming and grassland, those without ecological compensation areas were rated the highest; for landscapes with arable farming, those with 10% ecological compensation areas scored the highest. Mixed-management landscape (arable farming and grassland) with 30% ecological compensation area was most frequently selected as “most pleasing landscape" by both population and farmers. ‘Population’ and ‘farmers’ were thus in agreement that landscapes with a mixture of grassland and arable land were more pleasing than those consisting solely of grassland or arable land. The responses to questions on the ‘typical’ landscape in the Central Plateau asked within the framework of this survey support this statement. Type of landscape highly influences the importance of arable farming for the overall appearance of the landscape. The higher the percentage of species-rich grassland in the foreground, the higher the rating of the mountain landscapes. [...] Extensively managed species-rich areas (on the Central Plateau at present, usually ecological compensation areas) are highly important not only for maintaining and promoting biodiversity, but also for creating an attractive agricultural landscape.