lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

Can visitors visually distinguish successive coastal landscapes? A casestudy from the Curonian Spit (Lithuania)

Ramunas Povilanskas a, *, Dalia Baziuk _e b, Kestutis Ducinskas c, Arvydas Urbis d

a Centre for Health Research and Innovation, Klaip _eda University, Herkaus Manto g. 84, LT-92294, Klaip _eda, Lithuaniab Centre for Distance Education and Information Systems, Klaip _eda University, Lithuaniac Department of Informatics and Statistics, Klaip _eda University, Lithuaniad Department of Nature Sciences, Klaip _eda University, Lithuania

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 29 March 2015Received in revised form5 October 2015Accepted 9 October 2015Available online xxx

Keywords:Curonian spitVisual distinctivenessAesthetic quality

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: ramunas.povilanskas@gmail.com (

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.0020964-5691/ 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

a b s t r a c t

Visual distinctiveness of the series of successive coastal landscapes featuring the Curonian Spit, aUNESCO World Heritage site, has been investigated using black and white landscape photos as visualstimuli. Based on the results of the chi-square test it was confirmed with strong statistical evidence thatlay visitors indeed are capable of visual distinguishing different coastal landscapes and habitats whichoccur in the succession series from the shifting dunes to the mature forest. In all investigated 45 differentcases of coastal landscapes the null hypothesis was rejected with p < 0.00001. If the photographsrepresenting the landscapes are carefully selected by a dedicated group of professionals, then lay visitorscan correctly distinguish the landscapes and/or habitats even in the case when black and white pho-tographs are applied as visual stimuli.

2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

1.1. Problem description

Scenery plays a crucial role in attracting tourists inmany regionsand environments (Lothian, 1999). People who visit forests forrecreation form perceptions of a place based on what they see andexperience from the aesthetic point of view (Gobster, 1999). Coastalscenery is a major component of the desires of tourists visiting thecoast, and it is a combination of the physical and cultural envi-ronment (Anfuso et al., 2014). Enjoying scenery is also an importantsubcomponent in recreational activities such as fishing and hunting(Arlinghaus, 2006; Rolloff, 1998). Scenic appeal of landscapes isparticularly relevant to the post-industrial tourism paradigm,referring to the Urry's concept of the tourist gaze (2002, p. 149):Almost all environments across the globe have been transformed,or are being transformed, into diverse and collectable spectacles,spectacles often now involving gates in order that paying visitorscan enter, be charged and can consume them.

R. Povilanskas).

Knowledge of the relationship between visitors' activities andtheir landscape preferences may be of great help in the manage-ment of natural areas under high recreational use (Atauri et al.,2000). Most natural landscapes are relatively fragile and suscepti-ble to anthropogenic impacts developing through poor manage-ment of scenic resources (Chhetri and Arrowsmith, 2008). Hence,scenic landscape aesthetics can facilitate combining sustainablemanagement goals with a scientifically grounded understanding ofhow visitors make landscape preferences (Parsons and Daniel,2002). The possibility of relating individuals landscape prefer-ences to sociological, psychological or cultural features allowsplanners and decision-makers to incorporate public perceptionexplicitly into the policy-making process in a more proactive andinnovative way (Scott, 2003).

Scenic beauty can be a fair measurement proxy for perceivedacceptability of land management (Ribe, 2002). Consideration ofthe aesthetic perceptions, judgments, needs and demands of thepublic can contribute to a wiser resource use and more effectiveand intelligent planning of future landscapes (Vining and Stevens,1986). What is needed is a visual aesthetic assessment ofgeographic and temporal patterns of environmental conditions incomparison to other possible alternatives (Daniel, 2001). As it isaptly noted by Lewis (2006, p. 88): In effect, bringing aesthetic

Delta:1_given nameDelta:1_surnameDelta:1_given nameDelta:1_surnamemailto:ramunas.povilanskas@gmail.comhttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.002&domain=pdfwww.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09645691http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoamanhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.002

1 Here and further in the text a viewshed is interpreted as the extent andlocation of terrain visible from a given viewpoint (Floriani and Magillo, 1999).

R. Povilanskas et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 119 (2016) 109e118110

expectations into play in a way that provides mutual benefits tonatural and human ecosystems requires designing landscapes andcrafting policies with an awareness of what different stakeholdersvalue and require from their environment.

Thus, in the US, in recent decades, there has been a move awayfrom managing scenery towards designing forestry activities to fitinto or at least to try not to cause negative impacts on the aestheticquality of the forest landscapes (Bell, 2001). In the US state of RhodeIsland, aesthetic value (along with natural, commercial, industrial,and recreational features) is officially recognized in the state'slegislation as a primary asset of the coastal zone (Dalton andThompson, 2013).

1.2. Interpretations of the scenic quality of landscapes

The linkage between landscape and scenery as the main way tojudge on its quality is well-documented (Ribe, 1989, 2002; Rolloff,1998; Tveit et al., 2006). It has been suggested that: the aestheticdimensions of viewing landscape and experiencing scenic beautyare an integral part of an individual's overall experience in naturalenvironment (Ormsby et al., 2004, p. 34).

A number of different yet closely interrelated terms have beenused to denote these aesthetic dimensions, including: aestheticappeal (Shafer et al., 1969), scenic beauty (Daniel et al., 1977;Daniel and Vining, 1983; De la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; De Vrieset al., 2012); scenic quality (Arthur, 1977; Ayad, 2005;Eleftheriadis et al., 1990; Palmer, 2000; Ribe, 2002; Wu et al.,2006); aesthetic quality (Daniel, 2001; Gobster and Westphal,2004; Ode et al., 2009), scenic attractiveness (Chhetri andArrowsmith, 2008), visual quality (Lien and Buhyoff, 1986;Manning et al., 1996; Tveit et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2006). In mostcases, the use of the term scenic quality (or, interchangeably,aesthetic quality) has come to include most of the above.

The need for the aesthetic appreciation of coastal landscapesand habitats grows with an increasing environmental awarenessand reflects the potential aesthetic and recreational value of theselandscapes that can be pertinent for tourism development, incoastal heritage areas in particular (Povilanskas, 2004). The termsto denote the perceptional and cognitive processes of viewing,assessing, valuating and favouring landscapes are therefore widelyapplied, like aesthetic response to landscape (Pitt and Zube, 1987),appraisal of scenic beauty (Chhetri et al., 2004; Hull and Stewart,1992); visual landscape perception (Ervin and Steinitz, 2003;Fairweather and Swafield, 2001; Jacobsen, 2007; Nassauer, 1995;Shafer et al., 1969; Zube et al., 1982); perception of scenic quality(Ribe, 1989, 2002); landscape preference (Abbelo and Bernaldez,1986; De la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; Jorgensen et al., 2002;Kaltenborn and Bjerke, 2002; Ode et al., 2009; Palmer, 2000;Purcell et al., 1994; Wherrett, 2000); scenic and/or aestheticpreference (Gobster and Westphal, 2004; Lim et al., 2015).

Whereas each of the above terms has different shades ofmeaning, scholars and practitioners in the vast research field intothe scenic quality are mostly concerned with the questions Whatwe see, and what we make of what we see (Ervin and Steinitz,2003, p. 757) aiming to understand, interpret and utilize thejudgment that a landscape is beautiful either as a source ofaesthetic and psychological satisfaction, or as an economicallymeaningful amenity. But are visitors to nature areas, particularly tothe coastal ones, indeed capable of distinguishing different land-scape types in a way that were meaningful for spatial planning,landscape management and caring for the scenic quality? Thisquestion is especially challenging in the case of successive habitatsgradually featuring different coastal landscapes: from shiftingwhite dunes to scrubland, to mature forests and forest plantations.It is the central question addressed in the present case study.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study area

Our study focuses on the Curonian barrier spit which separatesthe Curonian Lagoon from the open Baltic Sea (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). Thelength of the Curonian Spit is 94 km (sensu stricto), the width variesfrom 380 m to 4 km. It is the largest accumulative barrier sand spitin the Baltic Sea Region (Gudelis, 1995). The varied and dynamicdune landscape with high biological diversity is a distinctivefeature of the Curonian Spit on the regional scale (Basalykas, 1977;Povilanskas et al., 2012). The 32.6-km long Grand Curonian DuneRidge of 40e60 m high shifting dunes is the second longest coastalshifting dune ridge in Europe (Povilanskas and Chubarenko, 2000).It is protected as a strict nature reserve within the Kurshskaya kosanational