Surveying the scene: A review of how landscapes are valued

• There is a difference between planning theorists and practitioners values and landscape users values. • Experts tend to follow materialistic valuation of tangible landscape values. • Landscape users tend to follow non-material valuation of intangible landscape values. • Landscape valuation is driven by theory and practice coming mostly by Europe, North America, Oceania and recently from China. • There is a need for more comprehensive valuation systems to accommodate both material and non-material landscape values. Planning theory and practice has placed considerable attention on the conservation of ecologically and culturally significant landscapes (ECSLs). A broad range of valuation systems have been proposed and implemented. This study performed a systematic literature review of 112 articles addressing the valuation of ECSLs to identify the landscape features that are most valued and why. The findings indicate that planning theorists and practitioners tend to follow material valuation approaches that prioritise the conservation and management of tangible landscape values. This trend has been traditionally driven by research and practice based in Europe, North America, Australia and Japan, and more recently from China. It follows more structured valuation systems such as the ecosystems services approach proposed by many international frameworks. In contrast, local landscape users assign value to landscape features depending on context-based experiences and aspirations that are underpinned by non-material valuation systems. The consideration of such intangible values could determine the extent to which stakeholders engage in landscape conservation. There is a need to develop more comprehensive valuation systems that can accommodate both material and non-material landscape values.