Landscape complexity perception and representation in a wine-growing region with the designation of origin in the Loire Valley (France): a cultural ecosystem service?

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems cambridge.org/raf Research Paper Cite this article: Hervé MET, Boudes P, Cieslik C, Montembault D, Jung V, Burel F, Cluzeau D, Winter S, Nicolai A (2018). Landscape complexity perception and representation in a wine-growing region with the designation of origin in the Loire Valley (France): a cultural ecosystem service? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1742170518000273 Received: 13 October 2017 Accepted: 7 June 2018 Key words: Aesthetic; ecosystem services; iconography; perception; vineyard management; website communication Author for correspondence: Morgane E. T. Hervé, E-mail: morgane.herve@ univ-rennes1.fr Landscape complexity perception and representation in a wine-growing region with the designation of origin in the Loire Valley (France): a cultural ecosystem service? Morgane E. T. Hervé1, Philippe Boudes2, Caroline Cieslik3, David Montembault4, Vincent Jung5, Françoise Burel6, Daniel Cluzeau1, Silvia Winter7 and Annegret Nicolai1 1 Univ Rennes, ECOBIO – UMR 6553, Biological Station Paimpont, F-35000 Rennes, France; 2Agrocampus Ouest, ESO – UMR 6590, F-35000 Rennes, France; 3Univ Rennes, HCA – EA 1279, F-35000 Rennes, France; 4Agrocampus Ouest, ESO – UMR 6590, F-49000 Angers, France; 5Univ Rennes, ECOBIO – UMR 6553, F-35000 Rennes, France; 6Univ Rennes, CNRS, ECOBIO – UMR 6553, F-35000 Rennes, France and 7University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), Institute of Integrative Nature Conservation Research, A-1180 Vienna, Austria Abstract Ecosystem services related to biodiversity, including cultural services, are essential for agricultural production such as viticulture. In agricultural landscapes, pesticides and mechanization threaten biodiversity, lead to landscape simplification and may reduce ecosystem services. On the other hand, consumers are more and more aware of environmental issues in food production. We investigated if landscape complexity, including soil management practices, was (i) appreciated by visitors and (ii) presented by winegrowers and tourism professionals in the French vineyards with the designation of geographical origin (DGO) ‘Coteaux du Layon’. Our goal was to determine if landscape complexity provides cultural ecosystem services such as aesthetics beneficial for the wine trade and the DGO region’s attractiveness. We analyzed the iconographic content and the composition of landscape photographs on 50 websites to investigate if local winegrowers and tourism professionals associate biodiversity in the landscape and soil management practices with wine promotion. A questionnaire was realized to study the perception of local landscapes by interviewing 192 visitors of the region. The benefits of landscape complexity and soil management practices favoring biodiversity in viticulture were known and appreciated by many visitors, even if photographs of wine and traditional practices appeared to encourage wine purchasing. Local winegrowers’ representation of the DGO region only partially served these preferences; instead they mainly presented the wine-growing region by photographs focusing on wine bottles and vineyards. Consumer’s preferences showed that complex landscapes could provide cultural ecosystem services that winegrowers are still less aware of. Therefore, complexity-targeted landscape planning including vegetation cover in soil management should be included in policy recommendations as agroecological measures for sustainable DGO production. Introduction © Cambridge University Press 2018 Ecosystem services, defined as the benefits provided by biodiversity to both human activities and welfare (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Fisher et al., 2009), are especially considered in agriculture (Mace et al., 2012). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and numerous studies (e.g., Daily et al., 1997; Connelly et al., 2015) evidence a declining biodiversity in agro-ecosystems, which leads to a decrease of ecosystem services provision. Modern agricultural practices have been identified as a major factor for this decline, in particular because of the excessive use of tillage (Pelosi et al., 2014), chemical fertilizers, pesticides (McLaughlin and Mineau, 1995) and landscape simplification (Landis, 2016). Viticulture has a specific ecological and socio-economic profile at a regional scale compared with crop systems. Vine is planted as a perennial monoculture and often locally processed to the final product and sold by the producer. Therefore, wine quality is usually associated to local terroir, i.e., both local environmental conditions and know-how (Castellucci, 2010). Local environmental conditions included in the terroir concept are topography, climate, biodiversity and landscape. Complex landscapes, characterized by diversity and richness of natural and semi-natural elements, including vineyard management promoting vegetation in the inter-row or peripheral grass strips, have been shown to favor biota beneficial for the viticultural agro-ecosystem (Altieri and Schmidt, 1985; Agnelli et al., 2014). However, despite the fact that viticulture encompasses only 2.5% of agricultural land in France, it uses 20% of the 2 total annually consumed pesticides (Ginon et al., 2014). Through intensifying viticulture and increasing landscape simplification, several ecosystem services, such as biological pest control (Begum et al., 2006), soil and water retention (Biddoccu et al., 2014), water contamination mitigation (Dousset et al., 2010) or wine quality (Bahar and Yasasin, 2010), are impaired. Complex landscapes might also provide cultural ecosystem services (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013) that could increase the attractiveness of the wine region. These cultural ecosystem services are less studied than other categories of ecosystem services in any ecosystem (Daniel et al., 2012), including viticulture (Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2013). However, the ‘cultural winegrowing landscapes’ (Luginbühl, 2005) may provide aesthetic (Tempesta, 2010) and recreational services (Tompkins, 2010). Aesthetic services can be defined as landscape features and functions providing or facilitating landscape aesthetics experience (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), i.e., the aesthetic benefits people receive through their senses and their interaction with landscape. The aesthetic response to a landscape is pleasure felt when a human viewer perceives the properties of an environmental stimulus (Gobster et al., 2007) through all senses (Zaleskienė and Gražulevičiūtė-Vileniškė, 2014). This perspective is larger than a theory of beauty or art only (Bourassa, 1988; Zaleskienė and Gražulevičiūtė-Vileniškė, 2014). Landscape aesthetics can be addressed by focusing (i) on human perception and judgment (Daniel, 2001), (ii) on landscape features (Swaffield and McWilliam, 2013) or (iii) on their interaction (Zube et al., 1982). The wide range of theories used to study landscape aesthetics (Fry et al., 2009; Swanwick, 2009) explains landscape perceptions by biological and evolutionary (Kaplan, 1987), cultural (Lothian, 1999) or mixed theories, as stated by Bourassa (1990) who also introduced the importance of personal knowledge. Ecosystem elements and biophysical characteristics, such as shapes, colors and textures, may also influence aesthetics (Swaffield and McWilliam, 2013). Hence, among a wide variety of available indicators for landscape characterization, the most accurate ones have to be chosen (Ode et al., 2008), according to the investigated research question. Many studies on landscape experience and aesthetics take the interaction of personal background (biological, social and cultural) and landscape characteristics into account (Abello and Bernaldez, 1986; Nassauer, 1988a; Gobster et al., 2007; Milcu et al., 2014; van Zanten et al., 2014). Thus, numerous comparative studies have ascertained differences in landscape perception between people according to their socio-demographic characteristics (Swanwick, 2009; LindemannMatthies et al., 2010) or their experience of the landscape, driven by their interests, practices or expertise (Buijs et al., 2006; Benjamin et al., 2007; Ode Sang and Tveit, 2013; Tempesta and Vecchiato, 2015). In particular, farmers can be expected to have a different perception of rural landscapes from other local residents (Winkler and Nicholas, 2016), from naturalists (Natori and Chenoweth, 2008) or from tourists (Quétier et al., 2010) as they tend to evaluate landscape on the visibility and potential yield of cultural land management (Gobster et al., 2007) which also reflects their own ability to ‘take care’ of their land (Nassauer, 1988a). Nassauer and Westmacott (1987) introduced the theory of ‘neatness’ understood as a form of ‘care’ for the landscape, which is mostly perceived as increasing its aesthetics (Nassauer, 1988b). This ‘care taking’ can be related to some soil management practices, the limitation of ‘messy looking Morgane E. T. Hervé et al. vegetation’ (Nassauer, 1995) or the presence of horticultural rather than spontaneous local plants (Nassauer, 1988b). Environmental measures could be facilitated by addressing farmer’s sense of ‘care taking’ (Nassauer, 1989). Viticulture benefits from a good reputation (Christ and Burritt, 2013) and wine regions seem to be attractive tourist destinations (Mitchell et al., 2012; Boatto et al., 2013). Consumers’ interest for environmentally sustainable agriculture is increasing (Forbes et al., 2009) and with that their willingness to purchase wines produced by environment-friendly methods (Barber et al., 2009). There is also a growing interest for ‘eco-eno tourism’ and sustainable wine production (Rochard, 2015) that may rely on cultural ecosystem services. Their provision at a landscape scale depends partly on vineyard management practices chosen by farmers, whose increased awareness of ecosystem services could lead to change their practices to preserve these services (Lamarque et al., 2014). Thus, we questioned in this study if landscape complexity and extensive vineyard management could increase aesthetic quality of landscapes perceived by visitors, thereby benefiting local wine promotion. The case study is a wine-growing region of the Loire Valley in France with the designation of geographical origin (DGO) ‘Coteaux du Layon’. Cultural ecosystem services are neither considered by (i) DGO rules (Consumption code, art. L431-1; Rural and maritim fishing code, art. L. 641-5), by (ii) local terroir description (INAO 2014), (iii) touristic labels (Interloire, 2010; AtoutFrance, 2016), nor by (iv) winegrowers themselves. During preliminary interviews, several winegrowers mentioned that ‘Local landscapes are quite trivial and visitors might need certain knowledge about biodiversity and vineyard management to understand and to appreciate them’. Only professionals from the tourism sector described the local landscapes as an asset for the region’s attractiveness and mentioned an increasing interest of visitors about more ‘environment-friendly practices’ in vineyards. National recommendations for DGO regions (Gauttier, 2006), researchers (Maby, 2002) and professionals of the winegrowing sector (Fourny et al., 2002) highlight landscape as a potential promotion tool for DGO products. To understand if complex landscapes and vineyard management practices favoring biodiversity might be a cultural ecosystem service to promote a wine-growing region, we investigated how winegrowers and tourist information offices represent and how visitors appreciate complex viticultural landscapes and vineyard management practices favoring biodiversity (e.g., inter-row vegetation) in the DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’. Our hypotheses were: (1) Complex landscape and vineyard management practices favoring biodiversity might positively influence visitors’ willingness to visit vineyards and buy wine. (2) Visitors perceive landscape complexity and know about the benefits of biodiversity. (3) Winegrowers rarely make use of these beneficial dispositions of visitors for the promotion of their products, while tourist information offices do for the promotion of the DGO region. Methods Study area The ‘Coteaux du Layon’ wine-growing region is situated in the department Maine-et-Loire within the Loire valley in the northwest of France (Fig. 1) and corresponds to the area of DGO of 3 Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems Fig. 1. Location of the wine-growing region with the designation of geographical origin ‘Coteaux du Layon’ (dark gray area) along the Layon river, in the west of France (a) and in the department Maine-et-Loire (b). Surrounding departments are indicated. a sweet white wine produced from the local vine variety ‘Chenin blanc’. A cartographical analysis based on the data from the French National Geography Institute (data base ‘BD Topo’) using the land use classification Corine LandCover 2006 completed by field observations revealed that 16% of the DGO area is used for viticulture, 44% is cultivated with other crops and 30% is semi-natural land (forests, woods, permanent meadows) besides urban areas and water bodies. The local terroir is characterized by important slopes along the river Layon, granite and sediment bedrocks, and mild climate (INAO, 2014). DGO rules impose grass strips surrounding vineyards, limited yields and late hand-harvesting (Consumption code, art. L431-1; Rural and maritime fishing code, art. L. 641-5). While landscape is clearly mentioned as a component of a terroir (Castellucci, 2010), none of those legal texts explicitly mentions neither landscape nor landscape management. About 150 winegrowers of the trade union ‘Independent Winegrowers’ process grapes and sell wine directly in the cellar (Vignerons Indépendants des Pays de la Loire, pers. comm. 2016). They are the focus of this study because (i) their vineyard management (within-field and between-field) shapes the winegrowing landscape and influences cultural ecosystem services provision, and (ii) they can be in direct relation with visitors. Winegrowers’ and tourist information offices’ websites’ photograph sampling In order to determine whether local winegrowers and tourist information offices used complex landscape and management practices favoring biodiversity to represent either their wine production or the region, we compared their public websites. In summer 2016, we selected the first 50 websites from winegrowers of the DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’ using the search string ‘vigneron Coteaux du Layon’ on Google search engine. Additionally, we selected the websites of the four existing tourist information offices of the study area. We defined a typology of the representation of the winegrowing region on each website and the composition of landscape photographs based on a quantification of observed photograph characteristics and landscape elements, respectively. This method allowed objectively analyzing a large number of websites and photographs. We visited the first page of each website and, if extant, the photograph gallery and the page presenting the region or the terroir. To define a typology of the photograph content of the websites, each picture was assigned to a category based on its content (Appendix 1). The composition of the landscape in each photograph was analyzed using a range of landscape parameters (sky, vineyards, semi-natural elements, water and non-flowering crops) and their estimated proportion of occupied surface as well as the presence/absence of inter-row vegetation and grass strips (Appendix 2). Moreover, we noted if historical heritage was shown and a range of other aesthetic parameters, such as light effects, distance of elements (depth of photograph) and elements in the foreground (Dramstad et al., 2006; Appendix 2). Questionnaire based on photographs for visitors In order to analyze the perception of landscape complexity among many visitors of the DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’, we chose to use a questionnaire. Because visitors usually stay for short periods of time in the DGO region and were not available for long interviews with appointment, the questionnaire was the most attractive method for street-use. Moreover, data from the questionnaire could be easily used in a quantitative analysis and interpreted using complementary qualitative answers. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part contained three questions to be answered with a photograph choice to capture different points of view of landscape perception. Hypothesis 1, about local landscape serving as an element of promotion for wine purchasing and for visiting the region of the DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’, was tested with questions 1 and 2, 4 while hypothesis 2, about knowledge on biodiversity beneficial for viticulture at a landscape scale, was tested with question 3: Question 1: ‘Which photograph is most inviting to buy wine?’ Question 2: ‘Which photograph could illustrate a postcard of the region to send to relatives or friends?’ Question 3: ‘Which photograph represents biodiversity that could be beneficial for vineyards?’ These questions had to be answered with one choice out of 17 photographs (8 × 12 cm, Fig. 2) from a corpus that was composed using different criteria as follows: five photographs representing a landscape complexity gradient (an increase of semi-natural elements proportion combined with a decrease in vineyard proportion in the landscape): J, L, F, E, K. Two pictures displayed contrasting wine-growing practices with a complex landscape as background: bare soil vs vegetation cover in the inter-row (B and G, respectively). Soil management with vegetation cover can be considered as semi-natural element thereby increasing landscape complexity. Other practices related to winegrowing, that are not influencing the landscape but may shape the experience of visitors, are craftwork in photograph D (traditional handharvesting as part of DGO rules), the use of machinery and pesticides in photograph I (state-of-the-art technology) and agropastoralism as an example for low-input viticulture in photograph P (agroecological techniques are still unusual in the ‘Coteaux du Layon’ area). We also showed pictures of other cultures than viticulture, such as cereals in photograph C and rapeseed in photograph K. Some pictures were included in the questionnaire because they show different recreational activities that can influence landscape perception (Barroso et al., 2012; van Zanten et al., 2016): historical heritage in photographs A, L, C, E and F; sports or outdoors activities, such as hiking in photograph C, fishing or swimming in photograph H, naturalism or hunting in photograph N; and eno-tourism in photograph O (wine tasting or purchase, cellar and vineyard visit). Finally, we also presented some characteristic abiotic elements from the region that define the local terroir: typical slope in photographs B, D, H and M; the river in photographs G, H and M; and the fog in photograph G. We introduced a photograph from another wine-growing region in France: DGO ‘Gaillac’ in the South-West of France in photograph Q to review if visitors recognize the landscape in the DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’. In this photograph, the soil and the trees species in hedges are representative of the French Southern viticulture. We arranged the photographs on a board (Fig. 2) to have a balanced view of colors and shapes as well as a good mix of photographs showing landscape, wine-growing practices and touristic activities. Each photograph choice was followed by an open-ended question to explain the choice (Barroso et al., 2012; Othman et al., 2015). The given reasons were coded and assigned to different categories to understand which element in the picture was the main driver of preference (Appendix 3). While only one photograph could be chosen to answer a question, a specific photograph could be selected several times to answer different questions. The second part in the questionnaire, the socio-demographic part, was used to investigate factors that could influence responses in the first part, such as age, education level, region of origin, type of social connections in and touristic interest for the winegrowing region (Appendix 4). During spring/summer 2016, the questionnaire was mostly presented in person to 192 visitors in the wine-growing region of the DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’ and Morgane E. T. Hervé et al. to habitants of the capital town of the department, Angers (Fig. 1), who had visited the region at least once. Sampling occurred in different parts of the DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’ during touristic events, such as vineyard visits, open cellars, hike and taste days, and regional festivals, as well as on camps sites and in tourist information offices. Additionally, an electronic version of the questionnaire was published by tourist information offices and ‘Independent Winegrowers’ trade union. Data analysis Statistical analyses were performed on R version 3.1.2 (R Core Team, 2014). For the analysis of the website content, a Correspondence Analysis was performed on a table containing the number of photographs per category (Appendix 1) in each website (Ménadier, 2012). As we only considered websites with more than five photographs for this analysis, 38 out of 50 were kept in the Correspondence Analysis. The significance level for absolute contribution was defined as: 1 × 10 000. Number of variables (N = 11) A Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (agglomerative type) was performed on the coordinates of the Correspondence Analysis using Ward distance (Rousseau, 1991) with 11 factors to identify the different website profiles of winegrowers. Tourist information offices’ websites were added according to their respective iconographic composition as illustrative elements to check if they fit into winegrower’s website profiles. To analyze landscape photographs in all winegrowers’ and tourist information offices’ websites, we performed a Multiple Correspondence Analysis on the landscape composition parameters (Appendix 2). We decided to retain landscape composition parameters for the interpretation if their correlation ratio on one axis was ⩾30%. Parameter values were then described on the axis if their absolute contribution was higher than: 1 × 10 000. Number of parameters (N = 36) A Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (agglomerative type) was performed using Ward distance on the χ2 projection of the data. The distribution of landscape photographs in different clusters was compared between winegrowers’ and tourist information offices’ websites with χ2 test (Crawley, 2007). For the analysis of the questionnaire, the final number of considered answers per question varied as some respondents did not fill in the whole questionnaire. For each question, we performed Fisher’s exact tests with simulated P-value (1000 repetitions) on the distribution of the answers among the socio-demographic groups (Crawley, 2007) for each socio-demographic parameter (Appendix 4). When the test result was significant, we used two-by-two post-hoc Fisher’s exact tests with Bonferroni correction (McDonald, 2013) to identify the differences between sociodemographic groups. Thereafter, we associated website photographic profiles from the Correspondence Analysis with the answers to the questions 1 and 2 to find out if websites’ photograph compositions target the preferences of wine consumers and tourists (hypothesis 1). Landscape photograph typology defined by the Multiple Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems Fig. 2. Selection of photographs shown to the visitors in the questionnaire and arranged as on the board presented to respondents during sampling. 5 6 Correspondence Analysis was also associated with answers to question 3 to identify if winegrowers and tourist information offices include landscape photographs in their websites that show biodiversity perceived as favorable to vineyards by visitors (hypothesis 2). Results Role of landscape in winegrowers’ representations and drivers of motivation to purchase wine or visit the DGO region The Correspondence Analysis identified six winegrowers’ website profiles in the DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’ (Fig. 3a) according to the significant contributions of photograph categories to each axis (Fig. 3b). The profile ‘wine’ corresponds to a group of winegrowers that showed wine bottles in 90% of the pictures on their website, while the profile ‘tourism–wine’ emphasizes tourism activities, such as wine tastings or vineyard hikes, besides wine bottles. Profile ‘craftwork–portrait’ comprises websites where either harvesters or workers in the cellar or the winegrowers themselves in front of the vineyards were shown. In the profiles ‘vine’, vineyards or vine plants/grapes were shown on most photographs, in the profile ‘vine–landscape’ also the surrounding landscape. However, no websites showed more landscape photographs than vine photographs. There is also an ‘undefined’ cluster of six websites that showed a large range of different photographs capturing elements of all profiles. The tourist information offices seemed to be characterized by photographs representing historical heritage, especially for the two southernmost tourist information offices Doué-La-Fontaine and Vihiers, while the two other tourist information offices showed also some landscape photographs (Fig. 3, Appendix 5). The most inviting photograph to buy wine differed significantly between categories of touristic interests (no differences found between categories of age, education level, region of origin or social connections, Table 1), while socio-demographic categories had no influence on question 2 about the photograph selected as a postcard (Table 1). The most chosen photograph for these two questions was O with a glass of wine (Figs. 4a and b). Visitors interested in the terroir mainly chose the photograph O as the most inviting one to buy wine in the DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’ (Appendix 6). Although this choice of the glass of wine could correspond to the winegrowers’ website profile ‘wine’ (see Fig. 3), photograph O was not only chosen for showing the wine, but also for the aesthetic of the photograph itself and for sunny/friendly moments associated by the respondents to this picture (Figs. 4a and b). The second most chosen photograph to answer question 1 was D showing the hand-harvest (Fig. 4a). Particularly, visitors interested in eno-tourism or historical heritage and non-touristic visitors answered with photograph D (Appendix 6), which could correspond to the winegrowers’ website profile ‘craftwork–portrait’ (see Fig. 3), because 93% of the respondents mainly mentioned hand-harvest as a reason for their choice (Fig. 4a). Photograph G, combining extensive soil management practices in vineyards (vegetation cover in the inter-row) with complex and diverse landscape in the background, was the second most chosen photograph to answer question 2 (Fig. 4b). Except pure wine purchasers, some individuals of all other socio-demographic groups also chose photograph G to answer question 1 (Appendix 6), so it was the third most chosen photograph for this question (Fig. 4b). Aesthetic aspects of the elements, vine and landscape Morgane E. T. Hervé et al. presence, and human-managed vine plants were the main reasons for choosing photograph G to answer both questions (Figs. 4a and b). This choice could correspond to the winegrower’s website profiles ‘vine’ and ‘vine–landscape’ (see Fig. 3). Role of landscape complexity in the photographs of winegrowers’ websites and visitors’ perception of biodiversity benefits for viticulture Landscape (i.e., large portion of space) was shown on 145 out of the total 1008 sampled photographs. Semi-natural elements, river, vineyards, grass strips and non-flowering crops were the main components of viticultural landscape photographs on winegrowers’ and tourist information office’s websites (Fig. 5). Landscape photographs could be grouped into intensive viticultural landscapes under human influence (group 1 in Fig. 5, >50% vineyards with human presence), semi-natural landscapes (group 2 in Fig. 5, no vineyards, >50% semi-natural elements and >50% water bodies) and diverse viticultural landscapes (group 3 in Fig. 5, <50% vineyards with grass strips, <50% semi-natural elements and other crops). The contribution of landscape photographs to these three groups differed between winegrowers’ and tourist information office’s websites (χ2 test, χ2 = 26.36; df = 2; P < 0.0001). Winegrowers in general showed rather intensive viticultural landscapes (73% of all landscape photographs from winegrower’s websites are in group 1) than semi-natural landscapes (7% in group 2), whereas tourist information offices show both intensive viticultural (48% of all landscape photographs from tourist information office’s websites are in group 1) and semi-natural landscapes without viticulture (45% in group 2). The presence of the river Layon seemed to be an important communication element for tourist information offices (in group 2 photographs show mainly water bodies), but not for winegrowers. Some winegrowers might be aware of the benefits of a complex and diverse viticultural landscape as they show it in some photographs on their websites (20% in group 3), while tourist information offices might not see the touristic potential (7% in group 3). There were differences between the categories of age and touristic interests in the choice of photographs regarding beneficial biodiversity for viticulture (Table 1). Photograph G, combining extensive soil management practices of vineyards with a complex landscape in the background, and photograph P, showing grazing sheep in the vineyard, were the most chosen ones (Fig. 4c). Reasons to choose photograph G were landscape complexity, abiotic factors visible in the photograph (e.g., slope, humidity) and extensive practices of soil management in the vineyards (i.e., vegetation in the inter-row of the vineyard, Fig. 4c). Such a complex landscape was only reflected by landscape photographs in group 3 of tourist information offices’ and winegrowers’ websites (Fig. 5). Moreover, within the clusters ‘vine’ and ‘vine–landscape’ in the analysis of the winegrowers’ website profile (Fig. 3), 102 photographs represented landscapes or vineyards; 66 of them showed vegetation cover in the inter-rows and 13 bare soil, while the others did not allow to see soil management practices. However, for 30–44 yr old visitors, photograph P showed more biodiversity than photograph G, because of the alternative soil management practices involving more fauna (78% of answers, Appendix 7). Elder people (>60 yr) mainly answered ‘none of the photographs’, because they do not know or useful fauna is not visible on any of the photographs (80% for both answers combined, Appendix 7), Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 7 Fig. 3. Correspondence Analysis (CA) of the photographic composition of winegrower’s websites in the wine-growing region ‘AOC Coteaux du Layon’ (N = 38 websites). The inertia of each axis is indicated beside the axes. (a) Each cluster of winegrowers’ websites (gray dots) represents a website profile defined by the cluster’s position relative to the two axes (Hierarchical Cluster Analysis). As such the website profile for each cluster is defined by the position of the photograph categories (see Appendix 1 for definition of photograph categories) relative to the axis they contribute to (b). Significant contributions for axes 1 and 2 are mentioned in brackets, first axis contributions are underlined and second axis contributions are not. 8 Morgane E. T. Hervé et al. Table 1. Fisher exact tests’ probabilities P of photographs chosen as answers to questions 1–3 between different socio-demographic groups (see Appendix 4 for grouping criteria) Age Education level Region Social connections Tourism activity Question 1: ‘Which photograph is most inviting to buy wine?’ 0.31 (145) 0.13 (149) 0.18 (143) 0.68 (138) 0.03* (145) Question 2: ‘Which photograph could illustrate a postcard of the region to send to relatives or friends?’ 0.18 (108) 0.54 (133) 0.06 (106) 0.09 (93) 0.76 (133) 0.01* (132) 0.11 (147) 0.27 (102) 0.36 (87) 0.04* (156) Question 3: ‘Which photograph represents biodiversity that could be beneficial for vineyards?’ *Points out significant differences of distribution between socio-demographic groups if P < 0.05. N, total number of answers, in brackets. N is lower than the total number of respondents, because some questionnaires were incomplete. Only photograph choices of >10% per socio-demographic group were considered in the analysis. and historical heritage visitors chose photograph N, evoking landscape complexity associated to game fauna (100% of answers, Appendix 8). Discussion Importance of wine and traditional production representations for wine purchasing in the DGO Ménadier (2012), who studied several cheese DGOs in Auvergne and Franche-Comté (France), identified two themes for regional representation used in communication: (1) abiotic characteristics (can be related to the ‘terroir’ concept), which is similar to ‘vine’ and ‘vine–landscape’ website profiles in our study, and (2) knowhow and consumption of the products (associated with friendliness and quality) similar to ‘craftwork’ and ‘wine’ profiles in our study. The aesthetics of photograph O is the most important driver for it being selected for encouraging buying wine. Mood lighting and bright colors create important contrasts that could influence perception (Arriaza et al., 2004). This photograph also evokes wine taste and quality as well as conviviality of a wine consuming moment (see also Ménadier, 2012). Traditional practices and familial characteristics of a vineyard, as shown on the second most chosen photograph D, are often highlighted on winegrowers’ websites (especially the profile ‘craftwork–portrait’, but also other websites outside this profile) and described as attractive elements that can translate into wine and vineyard quality (Boisvert, 2006) like in Saint-Emilion vineyard classified as UNESCO World Heritage Site (Briffaud and Davasse, 2012). These traditional practices have socio-economic consequences (Boisvert, 2006) and know-how transfer and employment of local people for hand-harvesting can play a role in the perception of viticulture (Luginbühl, 2007). Hence, social and technical heritage became associated with the idea of quality and authenticity, which is not always justified, and known as folklore. Laferté (2003) has described folklore development in Burgundy’s vineyards at the beginning of our century by the progressive association of wine quality with a local craftwork. In consequence, touristic iconography for wine-growing regions had been dominated in the past by winegrowers and workers in relation with wine products (Williams, 2001). Influence of visitors’ knowledge about biodiversity beneficial for viticulture on their perception of landscape aesthetics It seems visitors have certain knowledge about biodiversity favoring practices and landscape complexity beneficial for viticulture, as photograph G and semi-natural elements it shows were mainly chosen to illustrate beneficial biodiversity for viticulture. If it is in contradiction with some winegrowers’ statements, such a result follows what can be found in the literature (e.g., Naveh, 2001). By choosing photograph P, because they think it represents alternative management practices, visitors show an underlying knowledge in the perception of the ecological state of the vineyard can also shape their experience of landscape aesthetics (Arriaza et al., 2004). Likewise, photograph G was also the second most chosen photograph for aesthetics because it shows a complex landscape and vegetation in the inter-rows. Similar results were obtained by Nassauer and Westmacott (1987) and Nassauer (1995), where knowledge-oriented landscape are preferred. Several authors revealed that complex landscapes providing most ecosystem services are usually preferred by inhabitants, local workers as well as tourists over simplified agricultural landscapes (García-Llorente et al., 2012; van Zanten et al., 2016). Vegetation without ecological relevance (e.g., ornamental exotic species), however, could also increase landscapes aesthetic (Tempesta, 2010). Since respondents pointed out complexity as a driver of their choice, they confirmed to have a certain ecological knowledge, but the explanations were not sufficient to detect comprehension of specific ecological functions. Most of the elder respondents answered they do not know about beneficial biodiversity for viticulture, which could be explained by a lack of information about biodiversity itself. Lindemann-Matthies and Bose (2008) described an influence of age on respondents’ familiarity with the concept of biodiversity, elder people being less likely to have already heard about this concept. The photo of the grazing sheep (P) was mainly chosen in the age class from 30 to 44 yr, because it implies the use of alternative practices such as promoted by recent agroecology models (Altieri, 1983). Visitors interested in historical heritage choose the portrait of the deer (N), because it can represent to them more historical agricultural landscapes. Hence, in both cases, the perception could lead to a romantic vision of this type of agriculture (Gobster et al., 2007) rather than to a real knowledge about the effects it has on agro-ecosystems. Although Lamarque et al. (2011) showed that farmers are aware of ecosystem services such as landscape aesthetics, winegrowers’ websites showed mostly vine: the plant, fruit or plot, but less landscape complexity or soil management practices. Some winegrowers recognized the importance to show their practices as they noted an increasing demand from consumers and merchants to get more information about the production conditions (preliminary interviews, see also Ménadier, 2012). Visitors’ preference for complex landscapes including more extensive practices could thus (i) make winegrowers more sensitive to Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems Fig. 4. Choices frequency (%) for each photograph to (A) Question 1: ‘Which photograph is most inviting to buy wine?’, (B) Question 2: ‘Which photograph could illustrate a postcard of the region to send to relatives or friends?’, (C) Question 3: ‘Which photograph represents biodiversity that could be beneficial for vineyards?’ (N = 175 for each question). See Appendices 1, 2, 3 for differences between two socio-demographic groups. For photographs, see Figure 2. Reasons are not exclusive as each respondent could mention several of them (see Appendix 3 for reasons definition). 9 10 Morgane E. T. Hervé et al. Fig. 5. Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) of the composition of landscape photographs from winegrowers’ websites (circles, N = 118 landscape photographs) and Touristic Information Offices’ websites (squares, N = 27 landscape photographs) in the wine-growing region DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’. The inertia of each axis is indicated besides the axes (see Appendix 2 for parameter definitions and values). Parameters values are indicated only for parameters with a correlation ratio ⩾30%. Significant contributions for axes 1 and 2 are mentioned in brackets, first axis contributions are underlined and second axis contributions are not. landscape preservation and to extensive management practices (Candau and Deuffic, 2006), (ii) lead to the use of landscape management as part of the regional image and touristic development (Falcade et al., 2012), and (iii) influence landscape planning and agricultural policies favoring agroecological measures (Gobster et al., 2007), such as incentives for planting hedges and flowering grass strips in the DGO Champagne (CIVC, 2014). Role of landscape features in the DGO promotion by winegrowers and tourist information offices In his report about landscape in DGO promotion for the French Ministry of Agriculture and the National Institute of DGOs, Gauttier (2006) defines different types of landscape representations. The first one is the landscape as background, whereas the product is presented in the foreground, sometimes with other related objects, such as a glass for liquids or a knife for cheese. In our study, association of the product ‘wine’ with landscape remained extremely unusual. Instead, on winegrowers’ websites, the focus was on bottles with the label highlighted and rarely on wine in glasses. Ménadier (2012) also shows for cheese DGOs that landscape observation and product consumption are two separate activities, hence landscape is generally less presented on producers’ websites. It is hence a strong contrast that the most chosen photograph in our study represents a glass of wine in front of a vine plant and grapes. Wine bottles presentations on the websites might therefore not correspond to what consumers associate with the wine glass presentation they chose: aesthetics of the picture itself, sunny moments of wine tasting and conviviality. Mora and Moscarola (2010) evidenced that photographs evoking the emotion experienced during wine tasting or purchasing are the best advertising strategy. The second type of landscape presentation defined by Gauttier (2006) is the landscape shaped by agricultural activities. This definition could correspond to the profile ‘vine’ of winegrowers’ websites and to the vineyard-dominated landscapes they mainly show. The third type of landscape presentation defined by Gauttier (2006) is the scenic landscape including some specific animals, famous villages or historical heritage, the latter being a major element of rural landscape aesthetics (Tempesta, 2010). As such, the tourist information offices’ communication strategy analyzed in our study focused on historical heritage or a natural landscape, mainly composed of semi-natural elements and water in the photographs. Water’s influences on the landscape attractiveness are now widely admitted [see, e.g., Parsons and Daniel (2002) in the USA, Arriaza et al. (2004) in Spain or Dramstad et al. (2006) in Norway]. The objective of these touristic websites is to provide an attractive image of the region, with very typical subjects or elements usually considered as ‘beautiful’ (preliminary interview with tourist information office employees). Only the fourth type of landscape representation, the ‘stylized landscapes’ as a graphic representation of ‘emblematic’ characteristics allowing an abstract interpretation (Gauttier, 2006), was absent from the winegrowers’ and tourist information offices’ websites, maybe because they are more often used for bottle labels and flyers, that we had not included in our study. In governmental or other specialized publications, landscape aesthetic is described as a tool for product promotion (e.g., 11 Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems Ambroise and Brochot, 2009) potentially strengthening DGO regions (Candau and Ginelli, 2011), especially when the link between landscape complexity and product quality is anchored in the DGO definition (Gauttier, 2006). In general, environment-friendly production methods do not seem to be the major decision criteria to buy a product (Forbes et al., 2009), especially when this product is more expensive than others from conventional production methods (FassierBoulanger, 2006). Therefore, consumers need to understand the benefits provided by complex landscapes and traditional practices in general, but also for viticulture, in an agronomic, socioeconomic and ecological context and that could shape their perception of landscape aesthetic (Gauttier, 2006). Landscape aesthetic as cultural ecosystem service could then increase the touristic attractiveness of a rural wine-growing region and might even become part of territory planning for sustainable regional development (Benvenuti et al., 2012) with winegrowers being directly involved (Herbin and Rochard, 2012). Conclusion Winegrowers from the DGO ‘Coteaux du Layon’ have different communication strategies to illustrate and promote their production on their website. Most of them show simple, viticulture-dominated landscape or only the vineyard. The tourist information offices’ strategy is different from that of winegrowers by mainly showing natural and historical heritage. Nevertheless, complex viticultural landscape is appreciated by visitors, and they seem to know ecological benefits of complex landscapes and extensive vineyard management practices. Recent literature and also local winegrowers highlight the increasing interest of consumers for an environmentfriendly viticulture. Our results emphasize that landscape can be a relevant element to promote DGOs, as French national professional organizations tend to consider, as (i) visitors have enough knowledge about environment-friendly practices, (ii) extensive practices increase landscape complexity and (iii) landscape aesthetic is associated to socio-economic aspects of traditional production methods, such as hand-harvesting. Landscape planning should then become a process of regional sustainable development involving winegrowers’ engagement in shaping a local identity through vineyard management and wine production. Policy recommendations for agroecological measures could build on cultural ecosystem services provided by the winegrowing landscape. Wine itself or the wine experience, evoked by the aesthetic of the photograph, remain the most attractive elements to motivate visitors to buy wine. However, wine on winegrowers’ website was presented as bottles and our methodological approach did not allow to confirm if wine bottles on photographs have the same impact on consumers as our wine-in-the-glass photograph with a vine plant in the background. Therefore, future analysis should investigate how the motivation to buy DGO products evolves with increasing ecological education of consumers and developing policy or DGO rules toward agroecological practices in the viticultural landscape. Moreover, the willingness to pay for cultural ecosystem services could be estimated through the purchase of environment-friendly produced wine. Supplementary material. The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170518000273. Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank persons who provided their photographs: the tourist information office of the Vihiersois-Haut-Layon (photograph A), Jean-Paul GISLARD (photographs B, D, E, G, H, I, L, M and N), the organizers of Translayon (photograph C), Albin Fertil (photograph J), Château Pierre Bise (photographs M and P), LG Traiteur (photograph O) and Petit Futé (photograph Q). Maps were realized from BD CARTHAGE® (OpenLicence) and ©OpenStreetMap contributors data (free license ODbL). Thanks to Valérie Briand for literature survey. The authors also acknowledge the constructive comments on the manuscript by Alain Bellido from the University of Rennes 1, Martin Potthoff and Holger Bergmann from the Georg-August-University Göttingen, the support by Rebekka Schütte (through the possibility asking landscape-related questions during her focus group) and the great help of Claudia Wiegand for the language and the revisions. This study was funded by the French ANR through the ERAnet BiodivERsA project ‘VineDivers’ (2015–2018). The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. References Abello RP and Bernaldez FG (1986) Landscape preference and personality. Landscape and Urban Planning 13, 19–28. Agnelli A, Bol R, Trumbore SE, Dixon L, Cocco S and Corti G (2014) Carbon and nitrogen in soil and vine roots in harrowed and grass-covered vineyards. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 193, 70–82. Altieri MA (1983) Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture. Berkeley, USA: University of California, Division of Biological Control. Altieri MA and Schmidt LL (1985) Cover crop manipulation in Northern California orchards and vineyards: effects on arthropod communities. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 3, 1–24. Ambroise R and Brochot A (2009) Qualité des paysages, des produits & du cadre de vie. APPORT Paysages Agricoles 3. Institut Français de la Vigne et du Vin. Arriaza M, Cañas-Ortega JF, Cañas-Madueño JA, Cañas-Madueño JA and Ruiz-Aviles P (2004) Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69, 115–125. AtoutFrance (2016) Règlement d’usage de la marque collective Vignobles & Découvertes – Annexe 2 – Conditions d’éligibilité à la marque Vignobles et Découvertes. Available at http://www.atout-france.fr/sites/default/files/imce/ annexe_2_conditions_deligiblite_vd_26102016.pdf (Accessed 25 November 2016). Bahar E and Yasasin AS (2010) The yield and berry quality under different soil tillage and clusters thinning treatments in grape (Vitis vinifera L.) cv. Cabernet-Sauvignon. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5, 2986–2993. Barber N, Taylor C and Strick S (2009) Wine consumers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes: influence on willingness to purchase. International Journal of Wine Research 1, 59–72. Barroso FL, Pinto-Correia T, Ramos IL, Surová D and Menezes H (2012) Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. Landscape and Urban Planning 104, 329–342. Begum M, Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Hedberg PR and Nicol HI (2006) Using selective food plants to maximize biological control of vineyard pests. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 547–554. Benjamin K, Bouchard A and Domon G (2007) Abandoned farmlands as components of rural landscapes: an analysis of perceptions and representations. Landscape and Urban Planning 83, 228–244. Benvenuti P, Giannace M and Ciacci A (2012) Landscape, town planning and old vine: when territory becomes a ‘brand’. In Université de Bourgogne and CIVC (eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Terroirs Congress. Dijon-Reims, France, pp. 24–27. Presented at the 9th International Terroirs Congress, Dijon/Reims (France). Biddoccu M, Opsi F and Cavallo E (2014) Relationship between runoff and soil losses with rainfall characteristics and long-term soil management practices in a hilly vineyard (Piedmont, NW Italy). Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 60, 92–99. Boatto V, Galletto L, Barisan L and Bianchin F (2013) The development of wine tourism in the Conegliano Valdobbiadene area. Wine Economics and Policy 2, 93–101. Boisvert V (2006) From the conservation of genetic diversity to the promotion of quality foodstuff: can the French model of ‘Appellation d’Origine Contrôlée’ be exported? 49, CAPRi working papers. International Food 12 Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Available at http://econpapers.repec.org/ paper/fprworpps/49.htm (Accessed 31 January 2017). Bourassa SC (1988) Toward a theory of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 15, 241–252. Bourassa SC (1990) A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and Behavior 22, 787–812. Briffaud S and Davasse B (2012) Du bon usage du passé des paysages. Récits paysagers et durabilité dans trois sites viticoles européens du Patrimoine mondial (Tokaj, Saint-Emilion, Cinque Terre). In Luginbühl Y and Terrasson D (eds) Paysage et développement durable. Versailles, France: Quae, pp. 171–183. Available at https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal00787453 (Accessed 25 August 2016). Buijs AE, Pedroli B and Luginbühl Y (2006) From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: changing social perceptions of the European landscape. Landscape Ecology 21, 375–389. Candau J and Deuffic P (2006) Paysage: un mot et des maux pour se dire agriculteur. In Auclair L, Aspe C and Baudot P (eds), Le retour des paysans?: à l’heure du développement durable. Aix-en-Provence, France: Edisud, pp. 155–174. Candau J and Ginelli L (2011) L’engagement des agriculteurs dans un service environnemental. L’exemple du paysage. Revue française de sociologie 52, 691–718. Castellucci (2010). Resolution OIV/VITI 333/2010 – Definition of vitivinicultural ‘terroir’. Tbilissi, International Organization of Vine and Wine. Available at http://www.oiv.int/public/medias/379/viti-2010-1-en. pdf (Accessed 6 June 2016). Christ KL and Burritt RL (2013) Critical environmental concerns in wine production: an integrative review. Journal of Cleaner Production 53, 232–242. CIVC (Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne) (2014) Viticulture durable en Champagne. Référentiel technique, version du 4 avril 2014. Available at http://www.vitisphere.com/images_contenu/files/R%C3%A9f% C3%A9rentiel%20Viticulture%20Durable%202014%281%29.pdf (Accessed 31 January 2017). Connelly H, Poveda K and Loeb G (2015) Landscape simplification decreases wild bee pollination services to strawberry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 211, 51–56. Crawley MJ (2007) The R Book. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 950 pp. Daily GC, Alexander S, Ehrlich PR, Goulder L, Lubchenco J, Matson PA, Mooney HA, Postel S, Schneider SH, Tilman D and Woodwell GM (1997) Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology 2, 2–16. Daniel TC (2001) Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54, 267–281. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Gret-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe RG, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J and von der Dunk A (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 8812–8819. Dousset S, Thévenot M, Schrack D, Gouy V and Carluer N (2010) Effect of grass cover on water and pesticide transport through undisturbed soil columns, comparison with field study (Morcille watershed, Beaujolais). Environmental Pollution 158, 2446–2453. Dramstad WE, Tveit MS, Fjellstad WJ and Fry GLA (2006) Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 78, 465–474. Falcade I, Medeiros RMV and Pérard J (2012) Le paysage viticole et l’identité des régions avec indications géographiques (Brésil). In Université de Bourgogne and CIVC (eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Terroirs Congress. Dijon-Reims, France, pp. 37–40. Presented at the 9th International Terroirs Congress, Dijon/Reims (France). Fassier-Boulanger S (2006) Paysages viticoles et évolution des pratiques culturales: les vignes hautes et larges et l’enherbement (France). Sud-Ouest Européen 21, 37–46. Fisher B, Turner RK and Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68, 643–653. Forbes SL, Cohen DA, Cullen R, Wratten SD and Fountain J (2009) Consumer attitudes regarding environmentally sustainable wine: an Morgane E. T. Hervé et al. exploratory study of the New Zealand marketplace. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 1195–1199. Fourny N, Cormier O, Rochard J, Ambroise R, Stevez L and Denizot A-M (2002) Le paysage, de multiples atouts pour la filière. Les cahiers itinéraires d’ITV France 5, 8–9. Fry G, Tveit MS, Ode Å and Velarde MD (2009) The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators 9, 933–947. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, López-Santiago CA, Aguilera PA and Montes C (2012) The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service approach. Environmental Science & Policy 19–20, 136–146. Gauttier M (2006) Appellations d’Origine Contrôlée et Paysages. Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité. Available at http://agriculture. gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/documents/inaoetpaysage_0207.pdf (Accessed 30 September 2016). Ginon E, Ares G, Laboissière LHEDS, Brouard J, Issanchou S and Deliza R (2014) Logos indicating environmental sustainability in wine production: an exploratory study on how do Burgundy wine consumers perceive them. Food Research International 62, 837–845. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC and Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology 22, 959–972. Haines-Young R and Potschin M (2013) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CIcultural ES): Consultation on Version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework Contract N°EEA/ IEA/09/003. Available at https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2012/07/ CIculturalES-V43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf (Accessed 30 September 2016). Herbin C and Rochard J (2012) Landscape and agriculture: tools for sustainable development projects of territories. In Université de Bourgogne and CIVC (eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Terroirs Congress. Dijon-Reims, France, pp. 45–47. Presented at the 9th International Terroirs Congress, Dijon/Reims (France). Hernández-Morcillo M, Plieninger T and Bieling C (2013) An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecological Indicators 29, 434–444. INAO (Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité) (2014) Cahier des charges de l’appellation d’origine contrôlée Coteaux du Layon modifiant le décret n° 2011–1619 du 23 novembre 2011 relatif à l’appellation d’origine contrôlée Coteaux du layon. Bulletin Officiel 26, AGRT1404497D, NOR 17. Available at https://info.agriculture.gouv.fr/gedei/site/bo-agri/document_administratif-cd02193e-eda4-4b68-88c8-2055632ec873 (Accessed 6 June 2016). Interloire (2010) Charte touristique du vignoble de Loire. Vins de Loire. Available at http://www.levignobledenantes-tourisme.com/files/ot-vignoblenantes/files/ fichiers/partie_pro/pdf_partie_pro/chartevignobledeloire_office_de_tourisme_ vignoble_nantes.pdf (Accessed 6 June 2016). Kaplan S (1987) Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 19, 3–32. Laferté G (2003) La mise en folklore des vins de Bourgogne: la « Paulée » de Meursault. Ethnologie française 33, 435. Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgett RD, Szukics U, Schermer M and Lavorel S (2011) Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Regional Environmental Change 11, 791–804. Lamarque P, Meyfroidt P, Nettier B and Lavorel S (2014) How ecosystem services knowledge and values influence farmers’ decision-making. PLoS ONE 9, e107572. Landis DA (2016) Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic and Applied Ecology 18, 1–12. Lindemann-Matthies P and Bose E (2008) How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology 36(5), 731–742. Lindemann-Matthies P, Briegel R, Schüpbach B and Junge X (2010) Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: the impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 98, 99–109. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems Lothian A (1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning 44, 177–198. Luginbühl Y (2005) Paysages Viticoles. In Étude thématique LES PAYSAGES CULTURELS VITICOLES dans le cadre de la Convention du Patrimoine mondial de l’UNESCO. Paris: International Council on Monuments and Sites, pp. 15–18. Available at http://www.icomos.org/en/116-englishcategories/resources/publications/224-les-paysages-culturels-viticoles (Accessed 17 August 2016). Luginbühl Y (2007) Pour un paysage du paysage. Économie Rurale. Agricultures, Alimentations, Territories, 297–298, 23–37. Maby J (2002) Paysage et imaginaire: l’exploitation de nouvelles valeurs ajoutées dans les terroirs viticoles. Annales de Géographie 111, 198–211. Mace GM, Norris K and Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27, 19–26. McDonald JH (2013) Handbook of Biological Statistics, 3rd Edn. Baltimore, Maryland: Sparky House Publishing. McLaughlin A and Mineau P (1995) The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 55, 201–212. Ménadier L (2012) Paysages de fromages: sensibilités au paysage, pratiques des agriculteurs et ancrage territorial des AOC fromagères de moyennes montagnes d’Auvergne et de Franche-Comté. Clermont-Ferrand, France: University Blaise Pascal – Clermont-Ferrand II. Milcu AI, Sherren K, Hanspach J, Abson DFischer J (2014) Navigating conflicting landscape aspirations: application of a photo-based Q-method in Transylvania (Central Romania). Land Use Policy 41, 408–422. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press. Mitchell R, Charters S and Albrecht JN (2012) Cultural systems and the wine tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research 39, 311–335. Mora P and Moscarola J (2010) Representations of the emotions associated with a wine purchasing or consumption experience: emotions associated with wine-related experiences. International Journal of Consumer Studies 34, 674–683. Nassauer JI (1988a) Landscape care: perceptions of local people in landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape and Land Use Planning 8, 27–41. Nassauer JI (1988b) The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. HortScience 23, 973–977. Nassauer JI (1989) The aesthetic benefits of agricultural land. Renewable Resources Journal 7, 17–18. Nassauer JI (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal 14, 161–170. Nassauer JI and Westmacott R (1987) Progressiveness among farmers as a factor in heterogeneity of farmed landscapes. In Turner MG (ed.), Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. Ecological studies 64. New York: Springer New York, pp. 199–210. Natori Y and Chenoweth R (2008) Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28, 250–267. Naveh Z (2001) Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57, 269–284. 13 Ode Å, Tveit MS and Fry G (2008) Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research 33, 89–117. Ode Sang Å and Tveit MS (2013) Perceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Land Use Policy 31, 557–564. Othman N, Mohamed N and Ariffin MH (2015) Landscape aesthetic values and visiting performance in natural outdoor environment. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 202, 330–339. Parsons R and Daniel TC (2002) Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 60, 43–56. Pelosi C, Pey B, Hedde M, Caro G, Capowiez Y, Guernion M, Peigné J, Piron D, Bertrand M and Cluzeau D (2014) Reducing tillage in cultivated fields increases earthworm functional diversity. Applied Soil Ecology 83, 79–87. Quétier F, Rivoal F, Marty P, de Chazal J, Thuiller W and Lavorel S (2010) Social representations of an alpine grassland landscape and socio-political discourses on rural development. Regional Environmental Change 10, 119–130. R Core Team (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Rochard J (2015) Un nouveau support de communication: l’éco-oenotourisme, paysage, biodiversité, écoconception des caves. In 38th World Congress of Vine and Wine (Part 2). Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences, p. 07009. Rousseau R (1991) Reconnaissance de la structure de blocs d’un tableau par la classification ascendante hiérarchique. Les cahiers de l’analyse de données 16, 237–248. Swaffield SR and McWilliam WJ (2013) Landscape aesthetic experience and ecosystem services. In Dymond JR (ed.) Ecosystem Services in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends. Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whuena Press, pp. 349–362. Swanwick C (2009) Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 26, S62–S75. Tempesta T (2010) The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: a study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning 97, 258–272. Tempesta T and Vecchiato D (2015) Testing the difference between experts’ and lay people’s landscape preferences. AESTIMUM 66, 1–41. Tompkins J-M (2010) Ecosystem Services Provided by Native New Zealand Plants in Vineyards. Christchurch, New Zealand: Lincoln University. van Zanten BT, Verburg PH, Koetse MJ and van Beukering PJH (2014) Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: a meta-analysis of case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning 132, 89–101. van Zanten BT, Zasada I, Koetse MJ, Ungar F, Häfner K and Verburg PH (2016) A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services 17, 87–98. Williams P (2001) The evolving images of wine tourism destinations. Tourism Recreation Research 26, 3–10. Winkler KJ and Nicholas KA (2016) More than wine: cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California. Ecological Economics 124, 86–98. Zaleskienė E and Gražulevičiūtė-Vileniškė I (2014) Landscape aesthetics theories in modeling the image of the urban landscape. Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 7, 10–21. Zube EH, Sell JL and Taylor JG (1982) Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning 9, 1–33.