Tag: learning

Posted on

Learning lawns, leaves, landscapes – Wilmington News Journal

Are you all waiting around in anticipation for the “Great Pumpkin” to show up? This may well be 1 of my all-time beloved “Peanuts” episodes. Definitely, lots of ghost and goblins will be out and about in excess of the future couple of times celebrating Halloween. My phrase to the intelligent: Never take in far too substantially candy!

Other than Halloween, this is also time for leaves on and off the trees. Oh sure, they search great when they change colour and are however on the trees, but what about soon after they slide?

I am positive numerous of you are raking, blowing, or vacuuming up all these leaves then bagging them. A chore that has been a minimal hard with the breezy days we have lately had a chore I have no drive to full at our household.

I am certain some of you, if authorized, have considered burning them. I would not suggest burning to start with and foremost thanks to the primary reality we are really dry. In point, this is a single of the driest late summertime/early fall periods considering the fact that likely again to the late 1800’s.

Burning leaves is a waste of vitality. Locked inside that leaf are nutrition prepared to recycle back again into the soil. Trees pull power from the soil, use it in the process of generating leaves, and in all sorts of plant advancement and progress, then the leaves fall to the ground, they decompose, and return that power to the soil.

Burning leaves robs the soil of that recycled energy.

So, what can just one do? You can undoubtedly compost them and then use about trees, shrubs and crops at a later on time. Some will shred them and use as a mulch this time of yr.

An additional strategy would be to shred them with a mower returning them back again to the garden.

Lawns profit from shredded leaves much too. Research from Michigan Condition University demonstrates shredded leaves in the turf provides organic make a difference and mulches bare patches of soil, blocking potential germinating weed seed. In their study plots at MSU, they experienced 100{6d6906d986cb38e604952ede6d65f3d49470e23f1a526661621333fa74363c48} control of dandelion after 3 years of shredding fall leaves into the lawn.

When you are out making the most of the leaves contemplate what you may also do that will benefit your lawn and landscape for next yr. As in lots of several years there have been numerous troubles to contend with from insect destruction like bagworms, disorders like die again, canker and the extremes we get from Mom Nature.

Get to class

No matter if you expend a ton of time in your yard or just the occasional gardener, I would like to recommend you attend an upcoming Garden and Garden program, sponsored by the Clinton County Extension Business office and the Clinton County Grasp Gardeners.

The plan will be held 6:30-8 p.m. Wednesday, November 2 at the Clinton County Extension Group Room, 111 S. Nelson Ave. in Wilmington.

Benjamin Collings, neighborhood Clinton County Learn Gardener, will be presenting, “Fall Garden and Mattress Care: Suggestions for a Profitable Spring”, along with yours truly.

In addition to Benjamin’s presentation, we will look to remedy your questions alongside with addressing some of the big issues affiliated with weeds, disorder, and insects we skilled this past yr.

We all like savoring our landscapes but it is so crucial to take some time this time of yr and early winter to winterize our landscapes. We can actually commit hundreds of bucks attempting to hold our lawn and gardens seeking wonderful just about every yr.

Expending some hrs in our landscapes this time of yr could enable in possessing a substantially nicer, healthier, extra dilemma cost-free landscape following yr.

We hope you can occur out to our software next 7 days. Cost is cost-free to go to, but we do request that you RSVP, as we are setting up to have some refreshments for the duration of the system and will present handouts of details to those people attending.

You can RSVP by contacting the Extension business office at 937-382-0901.

Tony Nye is the point out coordinator for the Ohio Condition College Extension Modest Farm Plan and has been an OSU Extension Educator for agriculture and organic assets for above 30 yrs, at this time serving Clinton County and the Miami Valley EERA.

Posted on

Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Ringling College Presents CELEBRATING FLORIDA’S WILD WONDERS

Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Ringling College Presents CELEBRATING FLORIDA'S WILD WONDERS

Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at Ringling College presents “Celebrating Florida’s Wild Wonders,” a one-day event inspired by the book, The Wilder Heart of Florida, and featuring eight celebrated writers, poets, educators, environmentalists, architects, and artists.

The event is Friday, March 11, 2022, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. at the Ringling College Museum Campus, 1000 S. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota. General admission is $125; registration opens on December 7. The registration fee includes lunch and a complimentary reception. For more information and to register, call 941-309-5111, or visit www.OLLIatRinglingCollege.org.

Julie Cotton, a member of OLLI’s Advisory Council’s Strategic Program Committee, is the creative spark for “Celebrating Florida’s Natural Wonders.” She says that participants will “expand their emotional connection to Florida’s natural treasures and learn about places they never knew existed.” Cotton adds that audience members will have the opportunity to offer their own perspectives and interact with the guest speaker. The day will also include book signings and interactions with local environmental and art groups at display tables. Cotton encourages audience members to prepare for the event by reading The Wilder Heart of Florida, edited by Jack E. Davis and Leslie K. Poole, and The Palmetto Book by Jono Miller.

“This event was inspired by The Wilder Heart of Florida,” says Cotton. “Using the arts as our vantage point via evocative prose, poetry, painting, photography, architecture, and film, we aim to engage hearts and minds in celebrating and safeguarding our precious wild wonders.”

Panelists include: Leslie K. Poole, co-editor of The Wilder Heart of Florida and assistant professor of environmental studies at Rollins College; Gianna Russo, assistant professor of English and creative writing at Saint Leo University, author of several poetry collections, and winner of a Florida Book Award; and Bruce Stephenson, professor of environmental studies at Rollins College and author of John Nolen: Landscape Architect and City Planner.

Other presenters include notable environmental writers, artists, and educators, including: Jean Blackburn, contemporary artist, photographer, and naturalist who celebrates nature and the joy it can bring to human life; Susan Cerulean, multiple award-winning writer, naturalist, earth advocate, and author of three books, including the newly published I Have been Assigned the Single Bird, A Daughter’s Memoir; Pamela Callender, adjunct professor of eco-art history at Eckerd College, who has created a unique landscape design project called “Lifelines, Connecting Nature’s Habitat”; Joe King, the architect/developer who designed River Forest, the unique 26-home neighborhood on the Braden River, set among a lush native plants landscape; and Jono Miller, educator, activist, and natural historian who works to understand and protect wild places in Southwest Florida.

Visit www.OLLIatRinglingCollege.org.

Posted on

Social media and deep learning capture the aesthetic quality of the landscape

  • 1.

    Daniel, T. C. et al. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8812–8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109 (2012).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar     

  • 2.

    Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C. & Fry, G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 3.

    Abraham, A., Sommerhalder, K. & Abel, T. Landscape and well-being: A scoping study on the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments. Int. J. Public Health 55, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-009-0069-z (2010).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • 4.

    Rice, W. L. et al. Changes in recreational behaviors of outdoor enthusiasts during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis across urban and rural communities. J. Urban Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juaa020 (2020).

  • 5.

    Venter, Z. S., Barton, D. N., Gundersen, V., Figari, H. & Nowell, M. Urban nature in a time of crisis: Recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 104075. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb396 (2020).

    ADS 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar     

  • 6.

    Maes, J. et al. Mainstreaming ecosystem services into EU policy. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.002 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 7.

    Paracchini, M. L. et al. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol. Indic. 45, 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 8.

    Hein, L. et al. Progress in natural capital accounting for ecosystems. Science 367, 514–515. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz8901 (2020).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar     

  • 9.

    Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826 (2018).

  • 10.

    Martínez-Harms, M. J. & Balvanera, P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: A review. Int. J. Biodiv. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 8, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.663792 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 11.

    Raymond, C. M., Kenter, J. O., Plieninger, T., Turner, N. J. & Alexander, K. A. Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 107, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.033 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 12.

    Bateman, I. J. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: Land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234379 (2013).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar     

  • 13.

    Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T. & Bieling, C. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol. Indic. 29, 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 14.

    Hermes, J., Albert, C. & von Haaren, C. Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.015 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 15.

    Uuemaa, E., Antrop, M., Roosaare, J., Marja, R. & Mander, U. Landscape metrics and indices: An overview of their use in landscape research. Living Rev. Landsc. Res. 3, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2009-1 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 16.

    Schirpke, U., Tasser, E. & Tappeiner, U. Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 111, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.010 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 17.

    Tveit, M., Ode, Å. & Fry, G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res. 31, 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 18.

    Ode, Å., Tveit, M. & Fry, G. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landsc. Res. 33, 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701773854 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 19.

    de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. & Willemen, L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 20.

    Schröter, M., Remme, R. P., Sumarga, E., Barton, D. N. & Hein, L. Lessons learned for spatial modelling of ecosystem services in support of ecosystem accounting. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.003 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 21.

    Tenerelli, P., Püffel, C. & Luque, S. Spatial assessment of aesthetic services in a complex mountain region: Combining visual landscape properties with crowdsourced geographic information. Landsc. Ecol. 32, 1097–1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0498-7 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 22.

    Wood, S. A., Guerry, A. D., Silver, J. M. & Lacayo, M. Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci. Rep. 3, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02976 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 23.

    van Zanten, B. T. et al. Continental-scale quantification of landscape values using social media data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 12974–12979. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614158113 (2016).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar     

  • 24.

    Tenerelli, P., Demšar, U. & Luque, S. Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes. Ecol. Indic. 64, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.042 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 25.

    Richards, D. R. & Tunçer, B. Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.004 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 26.

    Sinclair, M., Mayer, M., Woltering, M. & Ghermandi, A. Valuing nature-based recreation using a crowdsourced travel cost method: A comparison to onsite survey data and value transfer. Ecosyst. Serv. 45, 101165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101165 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 27.

    Antoniou, V. et al. Investigating the feasibility of geo-tagged photographs as sources of land cover input data. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi5050064 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 28.

    Mancini, F., Coghill, G. M. & Lusseau, D. Quantifying wildlife watchers’ preferences to investigate the overlap between recreational and conservation value of natural areas. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13274 (2019).

  • 29.

    Hollenstein, L. & Purves, R. Exploring place through user-generated content: Using Flickr tags to describe city cores. J. Spatial Inf. Sci. 1, 21–48. https://doi.org/10.5311/JOSIS.2010.1.3 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 30.

    Donahue, M. L. et al. Using social media to understand drivers of urban park visitation in the Twin Cities, MN. Landsc. Urban Plan. 175, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.006 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 31.

    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539 (2015).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar     

  • 32.

    Naik, N., Kominers, S. D., Raskar, R., Glaeser, E. L. & Hidalgo, C. A. Computer vision uncovers predictors of physical urban change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7571–7576. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619003114 (2017).

  • 33.

    Toivonen, T. et al. Social media data for conservation science: A methodological overview. Biol. Conserv. 233, 298–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.023 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 34.

    Zhang, F., Zhou, B., Ratti, C. & Liu, Y. Discovering place-informative scenes and objects using social media photos. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 181375. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181375 (2019).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar     

  • 35.

    Srivastava, S., Vargas Muñoz, J. E., Lobry, S. & Tuia, D. Fine-grained landuse characterization using ground-based pictures: A deep learning solution based on globally available data. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 34, 1117–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2018.1542698 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 36.

    Egarter Vigl, L. et al. Harnessing artificial intelligence technology and social media data to support cultural ecosystem service assessments. People Nat. 3, 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10199 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 37.

    ScenicOrNot. ScenicOrNot Dataset (2015). http://scenicornot.datasciencelab.co.uk.

  • 38.

    Seresinhe, C. I., Moat, H. S. & Preis, T. Quantifying scenic areas using crowdsourced data. Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 45, 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516687302 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 39.

    Chesnokova, O., Nowak, M. & Purves, R. S. A crowdsourced model of landscape preference. In 13th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2017), vol. 86. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2017.19 (2017).

  • 40.

    Seresinhe, C. I., Tobias, P. & Moat, H. S. Using deep learning to quantify the beauty of outdoor places. R. Soc. Open Sci.. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170170 (2017).

    MathSciNet 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar     

  • 41.

    Workman, S., Souvenir, R. & Jacobs, N. Understanding and mapping natural beauty. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), vol. 4, 5590–5599. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.596 (2017).

  • 42.

    Marcos, D. et al. Contextual semantic interpretability. In Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision (2020).

  • 43.

    Arendsen, P., Marcos, D. & Tuia, D. Concept discovery for the interpretation of landscape scenicness. Mach. Learn. Knowl. Extract.https://doi.org/10.3390/make2040022 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 44.

    Levering, A., Marcos, D. & Tuia, D. On the relation between landscape beauty and land cover: A case study in the U.K. at Sentinel-2 resolution with interpretable AI. ISPRS J. Photogram. Remote Sens. 177, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2021.04.020 (2021).

    ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 45.

    Havinga, I., Bogaart, P. W., Hein, L. & Tuia, D. Defining and spatially modelling cultural ecosystem services using crowdsourced data. Ecosyst. Serv. 43, 101091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101091 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 46.

    Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C. & Plieninger, T. Using social media photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features across five European sites. Ecol. Indic. 94, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.009 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 47.

    Englund, O., Berndes, G. & Cederberg, C. How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes—A systematic review. Ecol. Indic. 73, 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.009 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 48.

    Zhou, B., Lapedriza, A., Khosla, A., Oliva, A. & Torralba, A. Places: A 10 million image database for scene recognition. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 40, 1452–1464. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2017.2723009 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • 49.

    Patterson, G., Xu, C., Su, H. & Hays, J. The SUN attribute database: Beyond categories for deeper scene understanding. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 108, 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-013-0695-z (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 50.

    Lee, H., Seo, B., Koellner, T. & Lautenbach, S. Mapping cultural ecosystem services 2.0—Potential and shortcomings from unlabeled crowd sourced images. Ecol. Indic. 96, 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.035 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 51.

    Ulrich, R. S. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landsc. Res. 4, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397908705892 (1979).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 52.

    Cordingley, J. E., Newton, A. C., Rose, R. J., Clarke, R. T. & Bullock, J. M. Habitat fragmentation intensifies trade-offs between biodiversity and ecosystem services in a heathland ecosystem in Southern England. PLOS ONE 10, e0130004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130004 (2015).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar     

  • 53.

    Newton, A. C. et al. Impacts of grazing on lowland heathland in north-west Europe. Biol. Conserv. 142, 935–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.018 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 54.

    Tveit, M. S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; A comparison between groups. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 2882–2888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 55.

    Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., Witt, A. & Makeschin, F. Assessment of landscape aesthetics—validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecol. Indic. 32, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.026 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 56.

    Graham, L. J. & Eigenbrod, F. Scale dependency in drivers of outdoor recreation in England. People Nat. 1, 406–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10042 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 57.

    Ryo, M. & Rillig, M. C. Statistically reinforced machine learning for nonlinear patterns and variable interactions. Ecosphere 8, e01976. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1976 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 58.

    Karasov, O., Vieira, A. A. B., Külvik, M. & Chervanyov, I. Landscape coherence revisited: GIS-based mapping in relation to scenic values and preferences estimated with geolocated social media data. Ecol. Indic. 111, 105973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105973 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 59.

    Foltête, J.-C., Ingensand, J. & Blanc, N. Coupling crowd-sourced imagery and visibility modelling to identify landscape preferences at the panorama level. Landsc. Urban Plan. 197, 103756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103756 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 60.

    Labib, S. M., Huck, J. J. & Lindley, S. Modelling and mapping eye-level greenness visibility exposure using multi-source data at high spatial resolutions. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 143050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143050 (2021).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar     

  • 61.

    Li, H. & Wu, J. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc. Ecol. 19, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000030441.15628.d6 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 62.

    Weather, U. K. UK seasonal weather summary—Winter 2009/2010. Weather 65, 99. https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.601 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 63.

    Lenormand, M. et al. Multiscale socio-ecological networks in the age of information. PLOS ONE 13, e0206672. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206672 (2018).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar     

  • 64.

    Li, L., Goodchild, M. F. & Xu, B. Spatial, temporal, and socioeconomic patterns in the use of Twitter and Flickr. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 40, 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2013.777139 (2013).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar     

  • 65.

    Uuemaa, E., Mander, Ü. & Marja, R. Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: A review. Ecol. Indic. 28, 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.018 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar     

  • 66.

    Daniel, T. C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54, 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4 (2001).

    Article 

    Google Scholar