Conference PaperPDF Available

A trend of psychological landscape evaluation from view point of survey papers

Authors:

Abstract

Landscape evaluation using psychometrical methods was pioneered by Peterson (1967). Such studies were popularized during 1970-1990's, but recently such research has tended to decrease. Figure 1 shows that the number of survey papers follows a similar tendency. Various technical developments of measurements and analysis were tried, and the first predictive model to explain the preference of landscapes was proposed by Shafer, Hamilton and Schmidt (1969). On the other hand, this approach was criticized by Carlson (1977), but this criticism never proposed a way to solve these problems. The background of this decline lies in the deadlock faced in the study of landscape evaluation study throughout the world (Fig.1,2). At the beginning of research on this subject, Japan and the United States were leading technical developments of in this area in the 1970s. Japanese researchers were interested in the application of the results of experiments based on the assumption of universality and everlasting truth of their results. This assumption was formed by the homogenous racial and cultural background of Japan, which possesses an uniform, nation-wide, and effective primary education system with a high rate of entrance into universities, as well as well diffused mass media in the form of television. Due to their belief, planners applied their numerical results for their planning purposes. On the other hand, researchers in the United States were interested in the effects of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds because of their society’s diversity in racial and cultural backgrounds provided by the large immigrant population. As a result, they hesitated to use their results directly in physical planning. The variety of stakeholders in their society required consensus in the community, and planners needed more consideration to apply their data in their planning. As a consequence, they accumulated numerous studies in their scientific journals (Fig. 3, 5). According to landscape evaluation research that spread from Japan and the United States to Europe and the world, the different results obtained arose due to ethnic and cultural backgrounds similar to the those of the United States. Researchers have run into the problem of what the results they obtained meant, i.e. what landscape evaluation was. We now know that the phenomenon of landscape evaluation is part of the mental aspects humans realize through their experience at the site and at the time, and human understanding of landscape appreciation has evolved through historical age (Appleton 1986, Bourassa 1991, Aoki and Kitamura 2001). This problem brought us new questions to consider, namely universality and immutability in transition between eras, as well as regional landscape evaluation. Planners who shaped the landscape by physical planning began to feel anxious about their results and wanted to understand how landscape evaluation results obtained at a certain point in time could be proven to be true and keep their usefulness in planning. Here, landscape evaluation study faced a big wall (Aoki 2014, Aoki 2015). However, in recent years landscape is actively researched in developing countries, and the number of papers has increased again since 2011. This research from developing countries may break through the wall currently faced by the field of landscape evaluation. Based on the discussion in JpGU2013 and JpGU2014, we hope that the outcome of this year‘s workshop supports these efforts. Reference Aoki, Y. (2014) Landscape Appreciation reported at the Conference of Japan Geoscience Union 2013 in term of Landscape Experience, J. of Environmental Information Science 42(5), 111-118. Aoki, Y. (2015) A historical review of landscape appreciation studies published in English journals until 2013, J. of Environmental Information Science 43(5), 115-124. Aoki, Y. and Kitamura, S. (2001) Ontogenic and phylogenic evolution of the human appreciation of the landscape, 38th IFLA World Congress Singapore 2001 conference proceedings, Singapore, P114-122pp. Appleton, J.H. (1986) The Experience of Landscape, Hull University Press, 293pp. Bourassa, S.C. (1991) The Aesthetics of Landscape, Belhaven Press, London, 168pp. Carlson, A.A. (1977) On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty, Landscape Planning 4, 131-172. Peterson, G.L. (1967) A model of preference: quantitative analysis of the perception of the visual appearance of residential neighborhoods, J. of Regional Science, 7(1), 19-31. Shafer, E.H., Hamilton, J.F. and Schmidt, E.A. (1969) Natural Landscape Preferences: A Predictive Model, J. of Leisure Research, 1(1), 1-19.
A trend of psychological landscape evaluation from view point of
review papers
Yoji AOKI, Christoph RUPPRECHT and Norimasa TAKAYAMA
Landscape evaluation using psychometrical methods was pi oneered by Peterson (1967). Such
studies were popu larized during 1970-1990's, but recently such research has tended to decrease .
Figure 1 shows that the num ber of s urvey papers follows a similar tendency. Vari ous technical
developments of measurements and analysis were tried, and the first predictive model to explain
the preference of landscapes was proposed by Shafer, Hamilton and Schmidt (1969). On the other
hand, this a pproach was criticized by Carlson (1977), but this criticism never proposed a way to
solve these problems. The background of this decline lies in the de adlock faced in the study of
landscape evaluation study throughout the world (Fig.1,2).
At the beginning of res earch on this subject, Japan and the United States were l eading technical
developments of in this area in the 1970s. Japanese researchers were interested in the a pplication
of the resul ts of experiments based on the assumption of universality and everlasting truth of their
results. This assumpti on was formed by the homogenous racial and cultural background of Jap an,
which possesses an uniform, nation-wide, and effective primary education system wi th a high rate
of entrance into univers ities, as well as well diffused mass media i n the f orm of television. Due to
their belief, planners applied their numerical results for their planning purposes.
On the other hand, researchers in the Uni ted States were interested i n the effects of diverse ethnic
and cultural backgrounds because of their society’s diversity in racial and cultural backgrounds
provided by the large immigrant population. As a result, they hesitated to use their results directly
in physical planning. The variety of stakeholders in their s ociety required consensus i n the
community, and planners needed more consideration to app ly their data in their planning. As a
consequence, they accumulated numerous studies in their scientific journals (Fig. 3, 5).
According to landscape evaluation research that spread from Japan and the United States to
Europe and the world, the different results obtained arose due to ethnic and cultural backgrounds
similar to the those of the United States. Researchers have run into the problem of what the results
they obtained meant, i.e. what landscape ev aluation was. W e now k now that the phen omenon of
landscape evaluation is part of the mental aspects humans realize through their ex perience at the
site and at the time, and human understanding of landscape appreciation has evolved through
historical age (Appleton 1986, Bourassa 1991, Aoki and Kitamura 2001).
This problem brought us ne w questions to consider, namely universality and i mmutability in
transition between eras, as well as regional landscape evaluation. Planners who shaped the
landscape by physical planning began to feel anxious about their results and wanted to understand
how landscape evaluation results obtained at a certain point in time could be proven to be true and
keep the ir usefulness in planning. Here, landscape evaluation s tudy faced a big wall (Aoki 201 4,
Aoki 2015).
However, in recent y ears landscape is actively researched in developing countries, and the
number of papers has inc reased again s ince 2011. This research from developing c ountries may
break through the wall currently faced by the field of lan dscape evaluation. Based on the
discussion in JpGU2013 and JpGU2014, we hope that the outcome of this year‘s workshop
supports these efforts.
Reference
Aoki, Y. (2014) Landsc ape Appreciation reported at the Conference of Japan Geosci ence Union
2013 in term of Landscape Experience, J. of Environmental Information Science 42(5), 111-118.
Aoki, Y. (2015) A historical review of l andscape appreciation studies published in E nglish journals
until 2013, J. of Environmental Information Science 43(5), 115-124.
Aoki, Y. and Kitamura, S. (2001) Ontogenic and phylogenic e volution of the human appreciation
of the la ndscape, 38th IFLA World Congres s Singapore 2001 c onference proceedings, Singapore,
P114-122pp.
Appleton, J.H. (1986) The Experience of Landscape, Hull University Press, 293pp.
Bourassa, S.C. (1991) The Aesthetics of Landscape, Belhaven Press, London, 168pp.
Carlson, A.A. (1977) On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty, Landscape Planni ng 4, 131-
172.
Peterson, G.L. (1967) A model of preference: quantitative analysis of the perception of the visual
appearance of residential neighborhoods, J. of Regional Science, 7(1), 19-31.
Shafer, E.H ., Hamilton, J.F. and Schmidt, E.A. (1969) Natural Landscape Preferences: A
Predictive Model, J. of Leisure Research, 1(1), 1-19.
0
5
10
15
20
25
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
Number
of papers
Yea r
Fig .1 Number of publishe d papers and survey paper s
pub lished pape r
surv ey pa per
0
50
100
150
200
250
1968
1974
1975
1977
1978
1981
1982
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1991
1996
1999
2001
2002
2006
2008
2008
2013
Number of references
Year
Fig.3 Number of references and percentage of journals
ref ere nce s
journ als
per centage of
journ als
Table 1 List of review papers
Year Name of author Title of paper Name of jour nals Total
references
in
journals
1968 Craik, K. H. The comprehen sion of the everyday physical environment, Journal of the American Ins titute of Planners,
34(1), 29-37. 12 4
1972 Craik, K. H. Psychological factors in landscap e appraisal s, Environment and Beha vior, 4(3), 255-266. 45 20
1974 Canter, D. Empirical research in environm ental psychology: A brief
review, Bull. Br. psychol. Soc. 27, 31-37. 89 28
1975 Crofts, R.S. The landscape component approac h to landscape
evaluation, Trans. Ins t. Br. Geogr. 66, 124-129. 21 8
1975 Unwin, K.I. The relations hip of observer and lands cape in lands cape
evaluation, I. B. G. Trans., 66, 130-134. 10 4
1977 Arthur, L.M., Daniel, T.C. &
Boster, R. Scenic ass essme nt: An overview, Lands cape Planning 4, 109-1 29. 61 29
1977 Carlson, A.A. On the possi bility of quantifying scenic beauty, Lands cape Planning 4, 131-1 72. 52 22
1977 Kreimer, A. Environme ntal preferences : A critical analysis of some
research m ethodologies , Journal of Leis ure Research, 9 (2), 88-97. 6 2
1978 Lowenthal, D. Findings valued lan dscapes, Progress in Human Geogr aphy 2, 373-418. 160 36
1981 Dearden, P. Public participa tion and scenic quali ty analysi s, Landscape Plann ing 8, 3-19. 74 42
1981 Penning-Rows ell, E.C. Fluctuating fortunes in gauging lands cape value, Progress in Human Geogr aphy, 5, 25-41. 84 42
1982 Seamon, D. The phenom enological contribution to environmental
psychology, J. of Environmental Ps ychology 2, 119-140. 113 17
1982 Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L. &
Taylor, J.G. Lands cape perception :Res earch, Application and Theory, Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33. 214 162
1984 Zube, E.H. Themes in Landsca pe Assessm ent Theory, Landscap e Journal, 3(2), 104-110. 46 14
1985 Kaplan, Rachel, The analysis of perception via preference: A strategy for
studing ho w the environment is experien ced, La ndscape Plan ning 12, 161-176. 24 4
1986 Hudspeth, T.R. Visu al preference as a tool for facilitatin g citizen participation
in urban waterfront revitalization, J. of Environmental Managem ent 23, 373-385. 30 7
1986 Ulrich, R.S. Huma n response s to vegetation and lands capes, Lands acpe and Urban Plann ing 13, 29-44. 88 40
1987 Dearden, P. Consen sus and a Theor etical Framework for Lands cape
Evaluation,
Journal of Environm ental Management, 34, 267-
278. 66 42
1987 Kaplan, S. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition; Environment al Preference
from an Evolutionary Perspective, Environme nt and Behavior, 19(1), 3-32. 70 26
1987 Zube, E.H., Simcox, D.E. &
Law, C.S. Perceptua l landscape simulations : History and prospe ct, Lands cape J. 6, 62-80. 170 102
1988 Bourassa, S.C. Toward a Theory of Lands cape Aesthetics, Lands cape and Urban Plann ing, 15, 241-252. 32 9
1988 Smardon, R.C. Perception and Aesthetics Urban Environment : Review of
the Role of Vegetation, Lands cape and Urban Plann ing, 15, 85-106. 106 54
1989 Gobster, P.H. & Chenowe th,
R.E.
The Dimens ions of Aesthetic Preference : a Quantitative
Analysis, Journa l of Environment Management, 29, 47-72. 81 39
1989 Rige, R.G. The a esthetics of forestry: What has emp irical preference
research taugh t us?, Environmental Manag ement 13(1), 55-74. 88 57
1991 Bishop, I.D. & Hull IV, R.B. Integrating technology for visual reso urce managem ent, J. of Environmental Managem ent 32, 295-312. 64 29
1991 Uzzell, D.L. Environmental Psycholo gical Perspectives on L andscape, Landscap e Research, 16(1), 3-10. 125 33
1996 Coeterier, J.F. Dom inant attributes in the perce ption and evaluation of the
Dutch landsc ape, Lands cape and Urban Plann ing 34, 27-44. 70 27
1999 Aoki, Y. Review article: Trends in the study of the psycholo gical
evaluation of lands cape, Lands cape Research 24(1), 85-94. 72 67
1999 Hunziker, M. and Kienas t, F.
Potential imp acts of changing agricu ltural activities on
scenic bea uty - a prototypical technique for autom ated rapid
asses sm ent
Lands cape Ecology 14, 161-176 61 49
2001 Daniel, T.C. Whither scen ic beauty? Visual landsca pe quality
asses sme nt in the 21st century, Landscape and Urb an Planning 54, 267-28 1. 114 78
2001 Palmer, J.F. & Hoffman, R.E. Rating reliabili ty and repres entation validity in scenic
lands cape asses sments , Lands cape and Urban Plann ing 54, 149-161. 71 44
2001
Tress, B., Tess, G.,
Decamps , H. and
d'Hauteserre, A.-M.
Bridging hum an and natural s ciences in land scape
research, L andscape and Urban Planning, 57, 137 -141. 23 11
2002 Karjala inen, E. & Tyrvainen,
L.
Visualization in fores t landscape preferen ce research: a
Finnish pe rspective, Lands cape and Urban Plann ing 59, 13-28. 41 27
2004 Stamps III, A.E. Mystery, Complexity, Legibility and Coheren ce, A meta-
analysis J. of Environmental Psychology 24, 1-16 96 46
2006 Tveit, M., Ode, A. & Fry, G. Ke y concepts i n a framework for analyzing visual lands cape
character, Lands cape Rese arch, 31(3), 229-255. 59 49
2007 Jacobsen, J.K.S. Us e of landscape perception methods in tourism s tudies: A
review of photo-based research approac hes.
Tourism Geographies , 9. 234-25 3.
http://dx,doi.org/10.1 080/1461668 070142287 l 84 57
2008 Collier, M.J. & Scott, M.J.
Industrially harvested pe atlands and after-us e potential:
Understan ding local stake holder narratives and land scape
preferences,
Lands cape Research , 33(4), 439-460. 84 41
2008 Matsuoka, R.H., & Kaplan , R. People needs in the urban l andscape: Analysis of
Landsca pe and Urban Planni ng contributions. Lands cape and Urban Planni ng, 84, 7-19. 90 90
2008 Ode, A., Tveit, M. & Fry, G. Ca pturing landsc ape visual character us ing indicators :
Touching bas e with landscap e aethetic theory Landscape Research 33(1), 89-11 7 8 2 48
2012 Yao, Y., Zhu. X., Xu, Y., Yang,
H., Wu, X. Li, Y. & Zhang, C.
Assess ing the visual quali ty of green lands caping inru ral
residenti al areas: the case of Changzhou. China.
Environmental Monitorin g and Assess ment
184(2), 951-96 7. 50 43
2013 Acar, H., Eroglu, E. & Acar, C. Landscape values of rocky habitats in urban and sem i-
urban context of Turkey: A study of Tokat city
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environme nt
11(2), 1200-12 11. 53 29
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
190 0 191 0 19 20 19 30 19 40 19 50 1 960 1 970 1 980 1 99 0 200 0 201 0
Number of refereces
Decade
Fig.2 Trend of nu mber of references in sur vey papers
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Frequency of citation
Nam e of aut hor
Fig.5 Order of authors by citation frequency
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Tokat is a characteristic city an unusual topographic structure including different land use and green areas in Turkey. The natural landscape values of green areas considered as nature splits withstanding against the urban pressures in the city and surroundings have been offered for implications for urban nature conservation and management. Therefore, this paper presents results of an attempt to assess landscape values of urban rocky habitats comprehensively, and evaluates a proposed systematic landscape value assessment approach for determining environmental perception and preferences of urban rocky habitats which are threatening within excessive urbanization and human use of natural areas in the context of the city of Tokat, Turkey. By using a questionnaire and landscape assessment approach, a total of 20 habitats selected from urban and surroundings were surveyed and with surveying performed on 170 participants, public preferences and landscape attributes for these habitats were determined. According to preferences and performed factor analysis results, gathering perceived data was used to describe and formulate a landscape model for rocky landscapes revealing the 'ecological and spatial', the 'visual/aesthetic' and the 'usage and arrangement' components of the scenes based on principal component structure of factor analysis. Consequently, some suggestions were also made regarding the landscape values in urban context of Turkey and the potential benefits of the method for urban nature conservation and management processes are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
A transparent and theory-based scheme for analysing visual character is presented. Based on a literature review, nine key visual concepts are identified: stewardship, coherence, disturbance, historicity, visual scale, imageability, complexity, naturalness and ephemera. The nine visual concepts are presented in a framework of four levels of abstraction, described through the concepts' visual dimensions, landscape attributes contributing to the concepts and potential visual indicators suggested for mapping and quantifying the concepts. Each of these concepts focuses on different aspects of the landscape important for visual quality, where visual quality is an holistic experience of them all. The visual concepts presented are used to describe different characteristics of visual landscapes, rather than presenting a normative value for visual quality. It is believed that this framework can be important for landscape assessment and the compilation of landscape character.
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents one way that landscape visual character can be captured using indicators derived from nine theory-based concepts related to landscape perception. The paper aims to establish links between landscape aesthetic theory and visual indicators, thus exploring what landscape indicators are really indicating. The steps from abstract visual concepts to measurable visual indicators are described, and links are made to theories of landscape preferences and perception. The focus of the paper is on the application of indicators, including a presentation of the possible data sources of the presented indicators. The paper includes a discussion on the selection of appropriate landscape indicators through a suggested filtering process. The relationships between the concepts and the ability of visual indicators to capture changes in landscape character and other issues related to interpretation are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Studies of the psychological evaluation of landscapes published from the late 1960s to the mid 1990s are summarized. Various experiments in landscape evaluation are reviewed, specifically those related to issues of sampling, methods of presenting landscapes, descriptors of appreciation, analytical methods, psychological responses to physical landscape features, and applications in physical planning. Early research on personal evaluation of landscapes and predictions of response to landscape parameters were based on relatively simple features. Subsequent model development has emphasized greater complexity with regard to photographic detail and/or the physical features of sites, such as vegetation, species type or tree diameter. Also, researchers interested in the effects of cultural background on landscape evaluation have examined the effects of subjects’ personality, ethnicity and living environment, and have considered the influence of human ontogeny and phytogeny on landscape evaluation. A long‐standing explanation for landscape evaluation has been that of ‘prospect‐refuge’ theory which derived from theories about the behaviour of animal predators, and this has latterly been supplemented by paradigms concerning the phylogenetic development of the brain.
Article
Full-text available
Multiple-use forest management has come to include an attention to scenic values, and methods are being developed to incorporate aesthetic considerations into decision making. A considerable body of scientific research has been conducted exploring public preferences for forest landscapes and intersubjective and contextual influences upon their perception. This research is surveyed. Findings regarding the perception of forest conditions, such as tree density and size, ground cover, species makeup and nonmanagement are considered. The scenic effects of forest treatments such as thinning, burning, and chemical application are outlined. Findings for harvest and regeneration practices such as clear-cutting, shelterwoods, selection cuts, and slash treatments are reported. Advances that consider the effects of time upon forest beauty and experiences are explored, along with a problem in multiple-use evaluation of scenic changes. Research on these topics and on observer intersubjective problems and general theory development is supported as a course of advancement in the field.
Article
The articles published in Landscape and Urban Planning during the past 16 years provide valuable insights into how humans interact with outdoor urban environments. This review paper explores the wide spectrum of human dimensions and issues, or human needs, addressed by 90 of these studies. As a basis for analysis, the major themes tapped by the findings were classified into two overarching groups containing three categories each. The Nature needs, directly linked with the physical features of the environmental setting, were categorized in terms of contact with nature, aesthetic preference, and recreation and play. The role of the environment is less immediate in the Human-interaction group, which includes the issues of social interaction, citizen participation in the design process, and community identity. Most significantly, the publications offer strong support for the important role nearby natural environments play in human well-being. Urban settings that provide nature contact are valuable not only in their own right, but also for meeting other needs in a manner unique to these more natural settings. In addition, although addressed in different ways, remarkable similarities exist concerning these six people requirements across diverse cultures and political systems. Urban residents worldwide express a desire for contact with nature and each other, attractive environments, places in which to recreate and play, privacy, a more active role in the design of their community, and a sense of community identity. The studies reviewed here offer continued evidence that the design of urban landscapes strongly influences the well-being and behavior of users and nearby inhabitants.
Article
The history of landscape quality assessment has featured a contest between expert and perception-based approaches, paralleling a long-standing debate in the philosophy of aesthetics. The expert approach has dominated in environmental management practice and the perception-based approach has dominated in research. Both approaches generally accept that landscape quality derives from an interaction between biophysical features of the landscape and perceptual/judgmental processes of the human viewer. The approaches differ in the conceptualizations of and the relative importance of the landscape and human viewer components. At the close of the 20th century landscape quality assessment practice evolved toward a shaky marriage whereby both expert and perceptual approaches are applied in parallel and then, in some as yet unspecified way, merged in the final environmental management decision making process. The 21st century will feature continued momentum toward ecosystem management where the effects of changing spatial and temporal patterns of landscape features, at multiple scales and resolutions, will be more important than any given set of features at any one place at any one time. Valid representation of the visual implications of complex geo-temporal dynamics central to ecosystem management will present major challenges to landscape quality assessment. Technological developments in geographic information systems, simulation modeling and environmental data visualization will continue to help meet those challenges. At a more fundamental level traditional landscape assessment approaches will be challenged by the deep ecology and green philosophy movements which advocate a strongly bio-centric approach to landscape quality assessment where neither expert design principles nor human perceptions and preferences are deemed relevant. On the opposite side of the landscape–human interaction, social/cultural construction models that construe the landscape as the product of socially instructed human interpretation leave little or no role for biophysical landscape features and processes. A psychophysical approach is advocated to provide a more appropriate balance between biophysical and human perception/judgement components of an operationally delimited landscape quality assessment system.
Article
Philosophers of aesthetics have tended to limit their subject to include only objects of art. In contrast to art objects, landscape include elements of both art and nature. In this article, I expand the scope of aesthetics to embrace landscapes. This is accomplished by linking pragmatic and humanistic aesthetic theories in a framework suggested by Jungian psychology. The framework has two interrelated components called the cultural theory and the biological theory. Diverse empirical observations are presented in support of the cultural and biological theories and implications for landscape planning are explored.