Research

INTRODUCTION

Agroecosystems benefit from ecosystem services essential to crop production (e.g., nutrient cycling, biotic regulation), but they also provide services in terms of their aesthetic appearance and soil conservation (Zhang et al. 2007). Agroecosystems occupy 40% of the land in the European Union territory (World Bank 2021) and have considerable potential to provide cultural services because they are perceived as aesthetic landscapes and sites of cultural preservation (Vanslembrouck et al. 2005). Cultural services can be defined as the “modalities of living that people participate in, that constitute and reflect the values and histories people share, the material and symbolic practices they engage in, and the places they inhabit” (Fish et al. 2016). They encompass themes such as spirituality, cultural heritage, education, leisure activities, social relations, and aesthetic values. Several studies have recently compared different agricultural landscapes by varying, for example, the presence of livestock or agroecological infrastructures, such as flower strips, hedges, and copses (Junge et al. 2011, van Zanten et al. 2016). Landscape changes due to agroecological transitions were perceived positively by the local population and were considered to provide more regulatory ecosystem services while retaining similar levels of productivity to conventional landscapes. However, the influence of agricultural management on cultural services at field scale requires further exploration.

Agricultural techniques modify the appearance of agroecosystems through the management of cultivated biomass (e.g., crops in place, presence of cover crops, residue management), soil preparation before crop sowing (tillage or no-tillage systems), and weed management (more or fewer weeds in fields). The understanding of this production of landscapes by agriculture and the cultural services it provides cannot be separated from the analysis of the role of the diversity in existing cropping systems, such as organic farming or conservation agriculture. We define a cropping system as the combination of a temporal succession of crops and the cropping techniques used to manage each crop applied to a field (Sebillotte 1990). The temporal succession of cropping techniques, coupled with the dynamics of vegetation within fields or in the field margin, modifies the visual aspect of cropped fields throughout the year, depending on the cropping system used. For example, in organic farming, weed management is based essentially on moldboard ploughing, disturbing the soil, and repeated use of the stale seedbed technique (Bond and Grundy 2001), preventing the establishment of cover crops and leaving the soil bare between consecutive main cash crops. Conversely, in conservation agriculture, a no-tillage system, weeds are generally managed by a combination of the systematic establishment of cover crops, the use of total herbicides, and the diversification of crop species over time and space (Kassam et al. 2019). All of these techniques influence the visual appearance of the field over the course of the year, and may be perceived by local residents as positive (weeds in organic fields, permanent crop cover in conservation agriculture) or negative (ploughing in organic farming, chemical destruction of a cover crop in conservation agriculture). To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has compared different cropping systems at field scale and analyzed their perception throughout the seasons (but see Junge et al. 2015 for a study at landscape scale). Local residents may express different levels of preference for the same photo presented alone or as part of a timeline. Thus, assessments of possible trade-offs between the aesthetic perception of cropping systems over the entire cropping season are required.

In addition to their aesthetic value, cropping systems affect biodiversity (McLaughlin and Mineau 1995). Biodiversity is intrinsically important in itself, but it also delivers and sustains a wide range of benefits that contribute to the well-being and livelihoods of human populations (Christie et al. 2012). In the minds of most people, elements with more biodiversity usually have a lower impact by man (low input management). Agricultural areas are not generally thought of as habitats for biodiversity, and when they are mentioned, it is generally only through meadows, which are considered “natural” (Cormier et al. 2012). Meadows, but also hedges and trees, have a higher biodiversity (Cormier et al. 2012), and furthermore, are perceived as more “natural” (perceived naturalness; e.g., Tveit et al. 2006, Ode et al. 2009). The assessment of aesthetic value is therefore not independent of the assessment of biodiversity, as each of these assessments can affect the other. It is important to assess the extent to which these two values are associated if we are to understand the motivations of local residents with respect to biodiversity conservation.

In open-field landscapes, wildflower strips serve as a lever for promoting biodiversity and supporting regulation services (Wratten et al. 2012). In addition to these direct services, the species composition and structure of flower strips (architecture, flowers of different colors) and their management may also affect perception of their aesthetic value and their value for biodiversity preservation. For instance, the aesthetic value of meadows is perceived to be higher at the flowering stage (Junge et al. 2015), with species richness seen as a positive feature (Lindemann-Matthies et al. 2010a). Mown meadows and stages during which bare soil is visible receive the lowest preference ratings (Junge et al. 2015). We would therefore expect species-rich unmowed wildflower strips to be perceived as more aesthetically pleasing and favorable for biodiversity.

In the face of the global biodiversity crisis, the way that local residents perceive biodiversity in arable fields may have a particularly important impact on the implementation of biodiversity policies (Soini and Aakkula 2007). We therefore need to determine whether agricultural landscapes can be simultaneously aesthetically appealing and perceived as more favorable for biodiversity and, if so, which agricultural landscapes are perceived most favorably. This knowledge should help to increase public support for ecologically motivated landscape change (Gobster et al. 2007).

The objectives of this study were to evaluate how contrasting cropping systems, through their effects on the visual appearance of fields and wildflower strips, affected perceptions of the aesthetic and biodiversity conservation value of arable crop fields among inhabitants of the Paris basin. This region is dominated by annual arable crops (Agreste 2020). Within the framework of the agroecological transition, we analyzed the perception of organic farming and conservation agriculture relative to conventional cropping systems. We also studied the perception of flower strips, which are widely recommended and implemented in agri-environmental schemes as a means of supporting wildlife.

We aimed to determine: (1) the extent to which the visual appearance of a field, which depends on the cropping system, affected the perception of aesthetic and biodiversity value among residents at particular times; (2) whether combining a series of photographs covering the entire cropping season into a temporal sequence could identify trade-offs between preferred and non-preferred photos, modulating individual preferences; and (3) the extent to which plant species diversity and the mowing of flower strips influenced residents’ perception of the aesthetic and biodiversity value of the fields.

METHODS

General principles of the questionnaire

We designed an online survey to evaluate participants’ perception of the aesthetic and biodiversity value of cropped fields and wildflower strips on the basis of their visual appearance. The questionnaire consisted of a combination of questions and photographs. Local residents had to compare and rank photographs of different agricultural fields or wildflower strips in different seasons. The photographs of fields or flower strips were taken close-up to hide differences in background elements that might otherwise bias the respondents’ assessment (e.g., topography, distant wooded elements). No information was provided about the cropping system employed in the photographed fields (e.g., organic or conventional farming) to ensure that the respondents analyzed only visual information. A first version of the questionnaire was tested with 10 agricultural and environmental experts. After critical discussions about its comprehensiveness, the questionnaire was refined before its completion by a panel of respondents from the general population.

Identification of the main combinations of cropping techniques affecting the visual aboveground appearance of the field crop

Cropping techniques and visual aboveground appearance

We compared the effects of three cropping systems: organic, conservation, and conventional agriculture. Within each category, we also compared the effect of different techniques (see below) affecting the visual appearance of the fields. We chose four periods during which these cropping systems influence the visual appearance of fields and, consequently, the way in which they may be perceived. The periods chosen were: (1) the summer fallow period between two main cash crops, defined here as the period extending from the harvest of the last crop until the sowing of the next crop; (2) soil preparation, just before the sowing of the crop (late August for oilseed rape or autumn for wheat); (3) the re-emergence of vegetation after winter (in February/March); and (4) the end of the crop cycle (in June). For each period, we selected photographs clearly differentiating between cropping systems and the effects of different techniques employed within each type of cropping system (e.g., tillage, species intercrops; Table 1; see photographs in Table A1.1). Our choices were based on recent descriptions of arable cropping systems in the northern half of France (Derrouch et al. 2020, Yvoz et al. 2020). These individual photographs were then combined into series recreating the temporal changes in appearance of fields representative of cropping systems found in the study area (temporal sequence, Table 1).

Conservation agriculture cropping systems maximize vegetation cover of the soil through multispecies cover crops, which may be grown as intercrops and are generally subsequently chemically destroyed (Derrouch et al. 2020). We designed four temporal sequences in which a cover crop was systematically present, with two levels of cash crop diversity (sole crop or intercrop), and three levels of weed type within the “sole crop” category. Weeds were (1) absent, (2) pretty, or (3) not particularly attractive (Table 1).

In organic farming, there is no cover crop during the fallow period, which facilitates mechanical weeding. We chose photographs of fields with a sole crop, sown with a large interrow for mechanical weeding. Three sequences were designed, differing in terms of the presence or absence of weeds and their type, as in conservation agriculture (Table 1).

In conventional cropping systems, the techniques used lead to more uniform, dense, and weed-free fields, with the appearance of the cash crop grown alone. We therefore designed a single temporal sequence with no cover crop followed by a dense and homogeneous crop cover and no weeds.

We thus designed a total of eight temporal photograph sequences corresponding to these three cropping systems, which were evaluated by each respondent (Table 1).

Weeds are generally more abundant in organic farming (Muneret et al. 2018) and conservation agriculture (Buhler et al. 1994, Chauhan et al. 2012) than in conventional cropping systems. This is why we did not ask respondents to evaluate images with weeds in conventional cropping system sequences. By analyzing only representative combinations of field appearance, we followed a systemic approach. Taking into account the fact that some techniques are strongly interrelated, we did not test all possible combinations of techniques. Furthermore, because our aim was to evaluate the effects of the techniques in different crops (but not to compare crops), we did not provide any image with oilseed rape in flower, so that the two sets of images (wheat and oilseed rape) remained comparable.

The temporal sequences were based on the two main crops found in the study area: winter wheat and winter oilseed rape (in 2019, 42% of the agricultural area was under winter wheat and 12% was under oilseed rape; Agreste 2020). Half of the respondents evaluated photographs of winter wheat crops, and the other half evaluated photographs of winter oilseed rape crops.

Management of wildflower strips

We analyzed the effects of (1) plant species richness in perennial wildflower strips, and (2) the mowing of vegetation on participants’ perception of aesthetic and biodiversity value. We selected photographs of wildflower strips with three levels of species richness (low, medium, and high) combined with two modes of mowing (summer mowing or no mowing; Table 2), resulting in six temporal sequences for comparison (see photograph timelines in Table A1.2).

Evaluation of individual photographs

The respondents were first asked to rank a series of photographs for each of the four study periods: (1) from the photograph they found the most aesthetically pleasing to the photograph they found the least aesthetically pleasing, and then (2) from the most to least favorable for biodiversity. As shown in Table 1, two photographs were submitted for evaluation for the fallow period, three for seedbed preparation, five for the recommencement of growth after winter, and four were presented for the crop at the end of the cycle. Each set of photographs was presented to respondents in a random order to prevent an order effect bias (Gibson et al. 2014).

We investigated the determinants of photograph preferences by proposing a list of keywords to be associated with the photographs ranked first and last for each of the four periods. Participants could select up to five keywords per photograph. For aesthetic quality, 15 keywords were chosen on the basis of indicators used in previous studies to convey different concepts relating to landscape aesthetics (see Table A1.3 for the definitions of concepts and selected indicators). We also added three neutral words (orange, green, and brown) on the basis of colors known to influence aesthetic perceptions (Tveit et al. 2006, Ode et al. 2008). For the perception of biodiversity value, we chose 22 keywords relating to mechanisms by which agriculture has been reported to affect biodiversity (Benton et al. 2003, Griffiths et al. 2008), such as the presence of resources, shelters, or habitat structure and the maintenance or disturbance of fields (Table A1.4).

Evaluation of temporal sequences

We assessed whether the combination of photographs in a temporal sequence altered participants’ perception of the photographs relative to the presentation of individual photographs. Participants were asked to rank the eight cropping system temporal sequences and the six flower strip sequences in descending order of preference, from the most to the least aesthetically pleasing and then, on the same temporal sequences, from the most favorable to the least favorable for biodiversity.

Socio-demographic and behavioral measures

The perception of beauty has a subjective aspect and could vary according to the experience of each respondent, together with educational level, age, and sex (Häfner et al. 2018). We investigated the extent to which this influenced our results by asking respondents to give their age, sex, main place of residence during childhood (urban, suburban, rural), level of education, socio-professional category, and postal code. We also asked respondents how often they visited areas with cultivated fields in the course of a year and we used a series of 11 statements to measure their attachment to nature (connectedness to nature scale [CNS], Mayer and Frantz 2004) to detect possible “pro-environmentalist” behaviors (New Ecological Paradigm [NEP], Dunlap et al. 2000) and to assess their general perception of agriculture (Wachenheim and Rathge 2000) on a Likert scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree; see Table A1.5 for detailed statements).

Panel description

The target population corresponded to people living in the Paris basin area (in the administrative regions of Yvelines, Essonne, Eure, Eure-et-Loir and Loiret), where the photos taken reflect the rural landscapes encountered.

The questionnaire was administered online during one week in December 2020 by the Kantar survey institute (https://www.kantar.com). It was distributed until 500 responses were reached. The panel had an even distribution of sexes (48% women and 52% men) and age groups. Half of the respondents had a general, technological, or professional baccalaureate or a 1st cycle university diploma. Half of the respondents were retired or office workers. The characteristics of the panel surveyed (percentage per age groups, education level, socio-professional categories, place of residence during childhood, frequency of visits to the agricultural landscape by administrative area of residence [department], and total) are detailed in the Table A1.6. The table also includes actual values for the region surveyed to ensure the validity of the sample. The most notable differences relate to an over-representation of retirees and people holding a 1st cycle university diploma, and an under-representation of people with no diploma. However, overall, the sample is quite representative of the actual population of the five surveyed departments. In total, respondents had a mean score of 3.4/5 (± 0.7) on the NEP scale, 3.8/5 (± 0.7) on the CNS scale, and 3.1 (± 0.6) on the general perception of agriculture.

Data analysis

Classification of individual photos for each period, to determine cropping technique preferences in terms of perceived aesthetic and biodiversity value

We determined which cropping techniques were preferred by calculating the frequency of first choice for each photo in each period. On this basis, we ranked the photographs in decreasing order of preference separately for aesthetic and biodiversity value perception. We projected the cloud of associated keywords (package “wordcloud”; Fellows and Ian 2018) to visualize the criteria behind the choices made: the larger the word in the word cloud, the more frequently it was selected by participants.

Classification of temporal sequences to determine cropping techniques and wildflower preferences across the year in terms of the perception of aesthetic and biodiversity value

We determined the order of preference for “cropping system” or “flower strip” temporal sequences by calculating the sum of ranks for each temporal sequence and then ranking the temporal sequences, from the lowest value of the sum of ranks (= most often ranked first and therefore preferred), to the highest value of sum of ranks (= most often ranked last and therefore least preferred). This analysis was performed separately for oilseed rape and wheat temporal sequences and for the temporal sequences for both crops pooled together. Separate analyses were performed for the perception of aesthetic and biodiversity value.

Comparison of ranks between individual photographs and temporal sequences for cropping techniques

We searched for possible trade-offs between preferences for cropping techniques at a given time (individual photographs) and the combination of techniques used over the cropping season (temporal sequences of photographs) by comparing the observed ranks of sequences with the expected ranks (i.e., theoretical) calculated on the basis of preferences for individual photographs. For each respondent and each temporal sequence, we summed the ranks of each of the four individual photographs when assessed separately. The sequences were then ranked according to this final score (sum of the four ranks) to determine the ranking of the sequences expected on the basis of preferences for individual photos. This ranking was compared with the observed ranking of the sequence in cumulative link models (adapted for ordinal-scale observations), for ordinal logistic regression with the “clm” function (“ordinal” package; Christensen and Christensen 2015). The temporal sequences (eight levels), type of ranking (observed or expected), and their first-order interaction were included as explanatory variables. Post-hoc tests for paired comparisons were then performed with the “lsmeans” function (“lsmeans” package; Lenth and Lenth 2018) to identify significant differences between the observed and expected rankings of temporal sequences.

Socio-demographic effects

We assessed the influence of respondents’ characteristics on their preferences for photographs using cumulative link models and ordinal logistic regression analyses with the “clm” function (“ordinal” package; Christensen and Christensen 2015) for each preferred individual photograph and for each temporal sequence. We included the following variables: sex, age, frequency of visits to agricultural landscapes, place of residence during childhood, highest level of education completed, socio-professional category, and crop (oilseed rape or wheat). The scores obtained for the CNS, NEP, and general perception of agriculture were included as fixed variables. Each subset of questions for the CNS, NEP, or agricultural perception were averaged for each respondent. When questions were formulated negatively, they were reversed to ensure that an increasing score denoted a greater link with nature. We kept the CNS and NEP scales separate, as they are not correlated (cor = 0.31; t = 7.15; df = 498; p < 10^-4).

ANOVA was performed with RVAideMemoire packages (Hervé 2021) to evaluate the global effects of socio-demographic factors (p-value threshold = 0.05) in the CLM model, followed by post-hoc tests for pairwise comparisons with the “lsmeans” function. All analyses were carried out with R version 3.5.2 (2018-12-20).

RESULTS

Preferences for individual photographs of agricultural fields for each period, with associated keywords

The photographs preferred by respondents for each of the four periods were ranked in the same order for the perception of aesthetic value and for perceived value for biodiversity, for both crop species considered (wheat and oilseed rape).

For the fallow period, the photograph showing a cover crop was much more frequently preferred than the photograph with no cover crop. For seedbed preparation, the photograph representing a chemically weeded cover crop, with orange vegetation (corresponding to frequent practice in conservation agriculture), was considered more aesthetically pleasing and biodiversity friendly than the photographs taken after soil tillage. For the period in which the vegetation re-started growing after winter, the preferred photograph was that of a typical conventional system, with dense vegetation, no residues, and no weeds. However, for biodiversity value, this photograph was ranked second overall (proportion of first choice = 36%) after that with weeds (41%; Table A1.8). At the end of the crop cycle, the most frequently preferred photograph was that of a field containing attractive flowering weeds (Papaver rhoeas; Fig. 1).

The photographs preferred in terms of aesthetic value for the fallow period or vegetative growth in early spring were associated mostly strongly with the keyword green and, to a lesser extent, with the keywords natural, lush, harmonious, and maintained. For seedbed preparation, the photograph considered most aesthetically pleasing, that with the chemically weeded cover crop, was associated principally with the following keywords: natural, brown, orange, and traditional.

For the end of the cycle, the photograph of the field containing flowering weeds was most frequently associated with the following adjectives: natural, harmonious, bucolic, and diverse (Fig. 1 and Table A1.7).

For the perception of biodiversity, the photographs of agricultural fields considered more favorable to biodiversity were generally associated with the following keywords: dense vegetation, natural vegetation, food resources, and refuges (Fig. 1 and Table A1.7).

Overall, socio-demographic factors had little effect on the ranking of photographs for either aesthetic preferences or perceived biodiversity value. One of the most relevant results was the higher probability of the photograph of a cover crop during the fallow period being preferred by respondents with a higher score on the “agricultural perception” scale, whereas none of the other photographs were related to scores on any of the three scales relating to natural, ecological, and agricultural perception (Table A1.9).

Classification of temporal sequences representing changes over time in the visual appearance of fields, and differences from the classification of individual photos

Respondents were asked to rank eight temporal successions of photos representing contrasting cropping systems. The three temporal sequences of cropping systems considered most aesthetically appealing and favorable to biodiversity were those typical of conservation agriculture. By contrast, the temporal sequence typical of a conventional cropping system was ranked last for the perception of both aesthetic and biodiversity value. The temporal sequence for a conservation agriculture cropping system field, with attractive weeds at the end of the cycle, was considered more aesthetically pleasing and more favorable to biodiversity than the sequence with unsightly weeds and the sequence with intercrops (Figs. 2 and 3).

These observed rankings were compared with the rankings expected from the evaluation of individual photos. For each temporal sequence, the mean observed and expected ranks differed significantly for all temporal sequences except for Org2 for aesthetic appreciation and for Cons1 for the perception of biodiversity value (Fig. 1). Considering all temporal sequences together, the expected and observed rankings of temporal sequences were quite consistent for the evaluation of aesthetic value. Exceptions were observed, however, for the temporal sequence representing a conventional cropping system (Conv1), which ranked three places lower than expected, and the temporal sequence in conservation agriculture without weeds (Cons1), which ranked three places higher than expected (Table A1.11).

The expected and observed rankings of temporal sequences for the perception of biodiversity value differed more than those for aesthetic value. The temporal sequences for conservation agriculture with unsightly weeds (Cons2) and without weeds (Cons1) ranked three places higher than expected, whereas those representing a conventional cropping system (Conv1) ranked four places lower (Table A1.11).

The ranking of temporal sequences for perceived aesthetic value depended mostly on the type of crop, socio-professional category, and on their attachment to nature (Table A1.12). There was considerable scattering, but we report here the main results. Attachment to nature, measured either via CNS or NEP scores, increases the ranking of the conservation agriculture sequence with an intercrop (Cons4) and with attractive weeds (Cons3). People from higher level intellectual professions and retired people ranked the conservation agriculture sequence with an intercrop (Cons4) higher than laborers. Office workers ranked the organic farming sequence with attractive weeds higher than people from intermediate professions (Org3). However, given the over-representation of retirees and office workers in our sample (see Table A1.6), these results should be taken with caution.

In terms of perceived biodiversity value, the ranking of Cons4 and Org3 increased with ecological awareness (NEP scale values) but decreased for the organic farming sequence without weeds (Org1, Table A1.12).

Finally, women ranked the conservation agriculture sequence with attractive weeds (Cons3), both aesthetically and ecologically, higher than men did.

Classification of the temporal sequences representing wildflower strips over the seasons

Respondents ranked the wildflower strip sequences in descending order of plant species diversity. Within each level of diversity, the strip not mown in summer was preferred over the strip mown in summer. The ranking was the same for perceived aesthetic and biodiversity value (Table A1.2).

For aesthetic value, people with a high degree of connection to nature (CNS scale) showed a lower preference for sequences of mown wildflower strips (M2). Respondents with high levels of ecological awareness (NEP scale) ranked sequences with a high plant diversity higher (NM3). Perceived biodiversity value was mostly dependent on age (Table A1.13).

DISCUSSION

In general, fields and temporal sequences with a higher degree of soil cover were systematically perceived as more aesthetically pleasing and favorable for biodiversity. The presence of flowering weeds in individual photos was also appreciated. Wildflower strips with a higher plant richness and without mowing during the summer were perceived as more aesthetically appealing and favorable for biodiversity.

The vegetation cover of soil and the presence of flowers in fields are key elements in the aesthetic appreciation of agricultural fields

Soil cover (i.e., the presence of a cover crop, fields with dense crops, and narrow inter-rows) and the presence of attractive flowering weeds at the end of the crop cycle were the two elements that appeared to determine the aesthetic appreciation of agricultural fields at particular time points. However, the presence of weeds, associated in a temporal sequence with the absence of a cover crop and tillage during seedbed preparation, was considered less aesthetically pleasing (e.g., Org3 temporal sequence) than the intercrop of attractive weeds with higher levels of soil cover in previous periods. A previous study has also shown that a greenish-brown appearance (e.g. crops early in the year, a mown meadow, or stages where bare soil was visible) received the lowest preference ratings (Junge et al. 2015). In our case study, this suggests a trade-off favoring soil cover throughout the season rather than flowers at a given time.

In addition, the increase in visual complexity that follows from an increase in species richness, as well as the presence of more colorful flowers (such as yellow, white, or purple patches), may account for the higher ranking of more diversified fields (Cons1 temporal sequence ranking lower aesthetically than Org3) for aesthetic value at the temporal scale (Lindemann-Matthies et al. 2010b, Junge et al. 2015, Schüpbach et al. 2021).

Finally, a dense and homogeneous crop at the end of winter, which was perceived positively in individual photographs, was judged to be less aesthetic than expected when integrated into a temporal sequence with low soil cover and no weeds during other periods typical of conventional management in the study region. Consistent with a previous finding that non-farmers generally dislike monoculture (Soini and Aakkula 2007), we also found that respondents disliked homogeneous successions of the visual appearance of fields over time (i.e., without cover crop, intercrop, or weeds).

Moreover, the adjective “green” was frequently associated with the preferred photographs for aesthetic value. This adjective was generally selected to describe photos without tillage or bare soil. In an experiment conducted at the Botanical Garden of the University of Zurich, 152 randomly selected visitors were asked to create a description of their own “dream” meadow by combining different species. Only one third of the plants were in flower and they often included “grasses,” indicating that people like diverse meadows composed of a green matrix interspersed with colorful flowers (Lindemann-Matthies and Bose 2007). In contrast to our online panel reflecting an adult population, the respondents of the latter experiment had a priori an interest in plants since they were interviewed at a botanical garden.

Our work at field scale is consistent with findings of other studies conducted at agricultural landscape scale. In particular, Boeraeve et al. (2020; in Belgium in 2016) and Gao et al. (2014; in Missouri, Texas, and Pennsylvania, USA, in 2011) suggest that conventional landscapes and intensive monoculture scenarios, respectively, are less valued than agroecological landscapes. In our study, at the field scale, the conventional temporal sequence had a worse ranking than organic or conservation temporal sequence, probably because of a more homogeneous visual succession. Indeed, Stobbelaar et al. (2004) highlight that organic farming contributes more than conventional farms to the phenology of the landscape (i.e., the contributions made by farms to the succession of colors and shapes during the seasons), to some extent because of a greater diversity of species and habitats giving a greater expression to the seasons.

A limitation of our design is, however, that respondents evaluated a single temporal sequence for conventional fields, without weeds or soil cover, before and after two main crops, which is restrictive even if this reflects the standard in northern France. Also, for simplicity, we chose to evaluate the same combinations of techniques for the two crops even though some may be more appropriate for one crop but not for another. For instance, cover crops are frequently used before a wheat crop in conservation agriculture but less frequently before oilseed rape.

The vegetation cover of soil and the presence of flowers in fields are also key elements in the perception of biodiversity value

Consistent with published findings, photographs and temporal sequences with a cover crop or intercrop were considered more favorable for biodiversity (de Pedro et al. 2020), as were photographs and temporal sequences including weeds that could provide arthropods with resources and shelter (Norris and Kogan 2000).

Respondents preferred vegetation cover treated with total herbicide over fields with bare soil in terms of perceived biodiversity. This result was unexpected because the renewal of the authorization to use glyphosate in EU has stirred a lot of discussions and debates in particular among citizens in European countries (Kudsk and Mathiassen 2020). Thus, it could have been expected such images to be negatively appreciated. This suggests that people may have an opinion about aspects of agricultural management without being able to recognize the consequences in real agricultural fields.

In addition, the preferred photograph for the seedbed preparation period was the chemically weeded cover, which was strongly associated with the adjective “natural.” “Natural” is something that belongs to or comes from nature, and which is not influenced by or a product of a human practice. In the absence of knowledge about the practice generating this visual appearance (yellow-orange vegetation), the respondents considered it to be “natural,” which reflects their lack of knowledge of agriculture or an aversion to bare soil. This finding suggests that people’s aesthetic preferences, when it comes to seedbed preparation, are associated with no-tillage systems, which are currently put forward as favorable for protecting soil fauna, in particular earthworms (Plaas et al. 2019).

Perception of the aesthetic and biodiversity value of different wildflower strips across seasons

Respondents preferred the most diverse (in shape and color) and unmown wildflower strip. This finding is consistent with previous studies showing the importance of the presence of flowers and species diversity, but also of structural diversity (defined by the height of the plants and the shape of the leaves) for aesthetic appreciation (Lindemann-Matthies and Bose 2007, Junge et al. 2015). Environments that are species rich throughout the year can be conducive to a sense of well-being and increase aesthetic appreciation (Fuller et al. 2007, Lindemann-Matthies et al. 2010b), thereby contributing to the provision of cultural ecosystem services. This finding is also consistent with our current results, where in-field plant diversity (weeds or intercrop), at the end of the crop cycle or at the temporal sequence scale, was most valued.

In terms of strip management, respondents ranked flower strips similarly for aesthetic quality and biodiversity value. This assessment is consistent with general ecological knowledge of the positive role of plant diversity on ecosystem functioning (Isbell et al. 2018), and with the known effect of summer mowing in semi-natural habitats. Indeed, mowing in summer presents risks for the fauna using the wildflower strips as refuges (e.g., during hot weather, disturbances in the field) and greatly decreases the nectar resources available to many insects at a time when crops have already flowered and been harvested, leaving agricultural landscapes poor in resources (e.g., the case of pollinators; Timberlake et al. 2021). Decreases in mowing intensity increase the abundance of wildflowers and of the insects visiting these flowers in suburban public parks (Garbuzov et al. 2015). The results of our survey suggest that biodiversity-friendly measures are on average appreciated by residents, even though our analysis did not capture the heterogeneity of preferences within the population.

Our results were only weakly affected by socio-demographic variables. The aesthetic ranking of wildflower strips depended on NEP and CNS scores. This highlights that attachment to nature and “pro-environmentalist” behaviors influence the perception of agroecological infrastructures. Even if they have a limited knowledge about agricultural practices, people with a high CNS score had a greater preference for unmown strips and those with a high NEP score had a greater preference for more diversified flower strips. The perception of biodiversity value depended mostly on the age of respondents and may reflect their experience; young respondents were more likely than their elders to value mown flower strips with little diversity than mown flower strips with high diversity.

APPLICATION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONCLUSION

Organic farming is generally held to be more virtuous than conventional farming in public opinion (Tscharntke et al. 2021), but without the public having any clear knowledge of the techniques employed in such cropping systems. Our original results indicate that temporal sequences of photos typical of conservation agriculture were considered the most aesthetically appealing and favorable to biodiversity. These results could be taken into account to enrich multicriteria assessments (e.g., Chabert et al. 2020) of the services and impacts of different forms of agriculture.

The presence of a cover crop, with high levels of soil cover by vegetation throughout the year and diversity (in terms of species, shape, and color) together with the presence of flowers seem to be the most relevant criteria for evaluating the aesthetic potential of fields cropped by diverse techniques and wildflower strips. This finding is in line with European Commission objectives (e.g., prevention of soil degradation, protection of biodiversity), which propose several practices to achieve aesthetic and biodiversity objectives through buffer strips and management practices without pesticides, and through the use of mixed cropping or conservation agriculture (European Commission 2021). Perennial wildflower strips also could be used in no-treatment zones in France, where pesticide application is forbidden within 20 m of human dwellings. Given the close proximity of these areas to the local residents, they could be useful sites for recreating links between humans and nature and between society and the agricultural world. Although flower strips and field management were evaluated separately here, it could be worthwhile to assess if the presence of a flower strip modifies the perception of field management.

Our results also demonstrate that farmers who do not necessarily benefit from payments dedicated to organic farming, or from the organic market, can produce cultural services beneficial to society, without any economic return from their practices. Payments for environmental services could be used as an economic tool to remunerate farmers for actions that contribute to, restore, or maintain ecosystems from which society derives benefits, including landscape aesthetic value and biodiversity protection (Engel et al. 2008, Börner et al. 2017). Although in some cases payments for environmental services could be detrimental to already existing motivations of farmers to deploy conservation agriculture (de Snoo et al. 2013), financial instruments constitute only one factor among others explaining farmers’ adoption of environmentally friendly practices (de Snoo et al. 2013, Dessart et al. 2019). Our results therefore provide useful first elements toward the design of payments for environmental services to include socio-cultural services provided by agroecological cropping systems. They call for further research on the actual willingness to pay citizens for cultural services provided by agriculture.

LITERATURE CITED

Agreste Ile-de-France. 2020. Memento de la statistique Agricole Ile-de-France 2020.

Benton, T. G., J. A. Vickery, and J. D. Wilson. 2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18(4):182-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00011-9

Boeraeve, F., M. Dufrêne, N. Dendoncker, A. Dupire, and G. Mahy. 2020. How are landscapes under agroecological transition perceived and appreciated? A Belgian case study. Sustainability 12(6):2480. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062480

Bond, W., and A. C. Grundy. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Research 41(5):383-405. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2001.00246.x

Börner, J., K. Baylis, E. Corbera, D. Ezzine-de-Blas, J. Honey-Rosés, U. M. Persson, and S. Wunder. 2017. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development 96:359-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020

Buhler, D. D., D. E. Stoltenberg, R. L. Becker, and J. L. Gunsolus. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Science 42(2):205-209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500080280

Chabert, A., and J.-P. Sarthou. 2020. Conservation agriculture as a promising trade-off between conventional and organic agriculture in bundling ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 292:106815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106815

Chauhan, B. S., R. G.Singh, and G. Mahajan. 2012. Ecology and management of weeds under conservation agriculture: a review. Crop Protection 38:57-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2012.03.010

Christensen, R. H. B. 2015. Package ordinal. Stand 19.

Christie, M., I. Fazey, R. Cooper, T. Hyde, and J. O. Kenter. 2012. An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecological Economics 83:67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012

Cormier, L., F. Joliet, and N. Carcaud. 2012. La biodiversité est-elle un enjeu pour les habitants? Analyse au travers de la notion de trame verte. Développement Durable et Territoires 3(2). https://doi.org/10.4000/developpementdurable.9319

de Pedro, L., L. G. Perera-Fernández, E. López-Gallego, M. Pérez-Marcos, and J. A. Sanchez. 2020. The effect of cover crops on the biodiversity and abundance of ground-dwelling arthropods in a Mediterranean pear orchard. Agronomy 10(4):580. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10040580

Derrouch, D., F. Dessaint, É. Felten, and B. Chauvel. 2020. L’adoption du semis direct sous couvert végétal: transition douce ou rupture? Cahiers Agricultures 29:5. https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2020003

de Snoo, G. R., I. Herzon, H. Staats, R. J. F. Burton, S. Schindler, J. van Dijk, A. M. Lokhorst, J. M. Bullock, M. Lobley, T. Wrbka, G. Schwarz, and C. J. M. Musters. 2013. Toward effective nature conservation on farmland: making farmers matter. Conservation Letters 6(1):66-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00296.x

Dessart, F. J., J. Barreiro-Hurlé, and R. van Bavel. 2019. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review. European Review of Agricultural Economics 46(3):417-471. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019

Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):425-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176

Engel, S., S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65(4):663-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011

European Commission. 2021. Commission publishes list of potential eco-schemes. 14 January. https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/commission-publishes-list-potential-eco-schemes-2021-jan-14_en

Fellows, I. 2018. Package wordcloud. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/wordcloud/index.html

Fish, R., A. Church, and M. Winter. 2016. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services 21(B):208-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002

Fuller, R. A., K. N. Irvine, P. Devine-Wright, P. H. Warren, and K. J. Gaston. 2007. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters 3(4):390-394. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149

Gao, J., C. Barbieri, and C. Valdivia. 2014. Agricultural landscape preferences: implications for agritourism development. Journal of Travel Research 53(3):366-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513496471

Garbuzov, M., K. A. Fensome, and F. L. W. Ratnieks. 2015. Public approval plus more wildlife: twin benefits of reduced mowing of amenity grass in a suburban public park in Saltdean, UK. Insect Conservation and Diversity 8(2):107-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12085

Gibson, A. W., P. Newman, S. Lawson, K. Fristrup, J. A. Benfield, P. A. Bell, and G. A. Nurse. 2014. Photograph presentation order and range effects in visual-based outdoor recreation research. Leisure Sciences 36(2):183-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2013.862886

Gobster, P. H., J. I. Nassauer, T. C. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22:959-972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x

Griffiths, G. J. K., J. M. Holland, A. Bailey, and M. B. Thomas. 2008. Efficacy and economics of shelter habitats for conservation biological control. Biological Control 45(2):200-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.09.002

Häfner, K., I. Zasada, B. T. van Zanten, F. Ungaro, M. Koetse, and A. Piorr. 2018. Assessing landscape preferences: a visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany. Landscape Research 43(6):846-861. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1386289

Hervé, M. 2021. RVAideMemoire: testing and plotting procedures for biostatistics. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/RVAideMemoire/index.html

Isbell, F., J. Cowles, L. E. Dee, M. Loreau, P. B. Reich, A. Gonzalez, A. Hector, and B. Schmid. 2018. Quantifying effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning across times and places. Ecology Letters 21(6):763-778. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12928

Junge, X., P. Lindemann-Matthies, M. Hunziker, and B. Schüpbach. 2011. Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biological Conservation 144(5):1430-1440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.012

Junge, X., B. Schüpbach, T. Walter, B. Schmid, and P. Lindemann-Matthies. 2015. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning 133:67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.010

Kassam, A., T. Friedrich, and R. Derpsch. 2019. Global spread of conservation agriculture. International Journal of Environmental Studies 76(1):29-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2018.1494927

Kudsk, P. and S. K. Mathiassen. 2020. Pesticide regulation in the European Union and the glyphosate controversy. Weed Science 68(3):214-222. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2019.59

Lenth, R. 2018. Package ‘lsmeans.’ American Statistician 34(4):216-221.

Lindemann-Matthies, P., and E. Bose. 2007. Species richness, structural diversity and species composition in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning 79(3-4):298-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.007

Lindemann-Matthies, P., R. Briegel, B. Schüpbach, and X. Junge. 2010a. Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: the impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 98(2):99-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.015

Lindemann-Matthies, P., X. Junge, and D. Matthies. 2010b. The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation 143(1):195-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.003

Mayer, F. S., and C. M. Frantz. 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(4):503-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001

McLaughlin, A., and P. Mineau. 1995. The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 55(3):201-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(95)00609-V

Muneret, L., M. Mitchell, V. Seufert, S. Aviron, E. A. Djoudi, J. Pétillon, M. Plantegenest, D. Thiéry, and A. Rusch. 2018. Evidence that organic farming promotes pest control. Nature Sustainability 1:361-368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0102-4

Norris, R. F., and M. Kogan. 2000. Interactions between weeds, arthropod pests, and their natural enemies in managed ecosystems. Weed Science 48(1):94-158. https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0094:IBWAPA]2.0.CO;2

Ode, Å., G. Fry, M. S. Tveit, P. Messager, and D. Miller. 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 90(1):375-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013

Ode, Å., M. S. Tveit, and G. Fry. 2008. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research 33(1):89-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701773854

Plaas, E., F. Meyer-Wolfarth, M. Banse, J. Bengtsson, H. Bergmann, J. Faber, M. Potthoff, T. Runge, S. Schrader, and A. Taylor. 2019. Towards valuation of biodiversity in agricultural soils: a case for earthworms. Ecological Economics 159:291-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.02.003

Schüpbach, B., S. B. Weiß, P. Jeanneret, M. Zalai, M. Szalai, and O. Frör. 2021. What determines preferences for semi-natural habitats in agrarian landscapes? A choice-modelling approach across two countries using attributes characterising vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 206:103954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103954

Sebillotte, M. 1990. Système de culture, un concept opératoire pour les agronomes. Pages 165-196 in L. Combe and D. Picard, editors. Les Systèmes de culture. Inra, Versailles, France.

Soini, K., and J. Aakkula. 2007. Framing the biodiversity of agricultural landscape: the essence of local conceptions and constructions. Land Use Policy 24(2):311-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.03.001

Stobbelaar, D. J., K. Hendriks, and A. Stortelder. 2004. Phenology of the landscape: the role of organic agriculture. Landscape Research 29(2):153-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390410001690374

Timberlake, T. P., I. P. Vaughan, M. Baude, and J. Memmott. 2021. Bumblebee colony density on farmland is influenced by late‐summer nectar supply and garden cover. Journal of Applied Ecology 58:1006-1016. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13826

Tscharntke, T., I. Grass, T. C. Wanger, C. Westphal, and P. Batáry. 2021. Beyond organic farming – harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36(10):919-930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.010

Tveit, M., Å. Ode, and G. Fry. 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31(3):229-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269

Vanslembrouck, I., G. Van Huylenbroeck, and J. Van Meensel. 2005. Impact of agriculture on rural tourism: a hedonic pricing approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56(1):17-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2005.tb00120.x

van Zanten, B. T., I. Zasada, M. J. Koetse, F. Ungaro, K. Häfner, and P. H. Verburg. 2016. A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services 17:87-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.011

Wachenheim, C. J., and R. W. Rathge. 2000. Societal perceptions of agriculture. Agribusiness and Applied Economics Report 449. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.23541

World Bank. 2021. Agricultural land (% of land area) - European Union. World development indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS?locations=EU

Wratten, S. D., M. Gillespie, A. Decourtye, E. Mader, and N. Desneux. 2012. Pollinator habitat enhancement: benefits to other ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 159:112-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.06.020

Yvoz, S., S. Petit, L. Biju-Duval, and S. Cordeau. 2020. A framework to type crop management strategies within a production situation to improve the comprehension of weed communities. European Journal of Agronomy 115:126009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126009

Zhang, W., T. H. Ricketts, C. Kremen, K. Carney, and S. M. Swinton. 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics 64(2):253-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024

Copyright © 2023 by the author(s). Published here under license by The Resilience Alliance. This article is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You may share and adapt the work provided the original author and source are credited, you indicate whether any changes were made, and you include a link to the license.