Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 77, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 393-407

  de la Fuente de Val, Gonzalo ^a   Atauri, José A ^a   de Lucio, José V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALCALÁ   (Spain)

Author keywords

Landscape quality; Landscape structure; Spatial metrics; Visual aesthetic quality

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS; ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING; LANDFORMS; PHOTOINTERPRETATION; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

LANDSCAPE QUALITY; LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE; SPATIAL METRICS; VISUAL AESTHETIC QUALITY;

LAND USE;

CORRELATION; HETEROGENEITY; LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE; MEDITERRANEAN ENVIRONMENT; PHOTOGRAPH; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SPATIAL VARIATION; VISUALIZATION;

MEDITERRANEAN REGION; MEDITERRANEAN SEA;

EID: 33746546775     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape (1975), John Wiley and Sons, London
2. Arriaza M., Cañas-Ortega J., Cañas-Madueño J., and Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 69 (2004) 115-125
3. Baldwin, J., Fisher, P., Wood, J., Langford, M., 1996. Modelling environmental cognition of the view with GIS. In: Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modelling. Santa Fe, Nuevo Mexico.
4. Berlyne D. Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity (1960), McGraw-Hill, NY
5. Bernáldez F., and Gallardo D. Determinación de los factores que intervienen en las preferencias paisajísticas. Arbor 518-519 (1989) 15-44
6. Bernáldez, F., 1985. Invitación a La Ecología Humana: La Adaptación Afectiva al Entorno. Tecnos, S.A., Madrid.
7. Birkhoff G. Aesthetic Measure (1933), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
8. Bishop I. Comparing regression and neural net based approaches to modelling of scenic beauty. Landsc. Urban Plann. 34 (1996) 125-134
9. Bishop I., and Hulse D. Prediction of scenic using mapped data and geographic information systems. Landsc. Urban Plann. 30 (1994) 59-70
10. Bovill C. Fractal Geometry in Architecture and Design (1996), Birkhauser, Boston
11. Crawford D. Using remotely sensed data in landscape visual quality assessment. Landsc. Urban Plann. 30 (1994) 71-81
12. Daniel T. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plann. 56 (2001) 267-281
13. De Veer A., and Burrough P. Physiognomic landscape mapping in the Netherlands. Landsc. Plann. 5 (1978) 45-62
14. Dearden P. Consensus and a theoretical framework for landscape evaluation. J. Environ. Manage. 34 (1987) 267-278
15. Forman R. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscape and Regions (1995), Cambridge University Press, NY
16. Francès, R., 1968. Psychologie de L'art et de L'esthetique. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, France.
17. Franco D., Mannino I., and Zanetto G. The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: the role of a lansdcape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landsc. Urban Plann. 62 (2003) 119-138
18. Giles J., and Trani M. Key elements of landscape pattern measures. Environ. Manage. 23 4 (1999) 477-481
19. Gimblett H., Fitzgibson J., Bechard K., Wightman J., and Itami R. Procedure for assessing visual quality for landscape planning and management. Environ. Manage. 11 3 (1987) 359-367
20. Gobster P., and Chenoweth R. The dimensions of aesthetic preference: a quantitative analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 29 (1989) 47-72
21. Gustafson E. Quantifying landscape spatial pattern: what is the state of the art?. Ecosystems 1 (1998) 143-156
22. Hagerhall C. Clustering predictors of landscapes preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscapes: prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. J. Environ. Psychol. 20 (2000) 83-90
23. Hammitt W., Patterson M., and Noe F. Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landsc. Urban Plann. 29 (1994) 171-183
24. Hanyu K. Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas after dark. J. Environ. Psychol. 17 (1997) 301-315
25. Herzog F., Lausch A., Müller E., Thulke H., Steinhardt U., and Lehmann S. Landscape metrics for assessment of landscape destruction and rehabilitation. Environ. Manage. 27 1 (2001) 91-107
26. Herzog F., and Shier R. Complexity, age and building preference. Environ. Behav. 32 4 (2000) 557-575
27. Herzog T., and Leverich O. Search for legibility. Environ. Behav. 35 4 (2003) 459-477
28. Hunziker M., and Kienast F. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty-a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landsc. Ecol. 14 (1999) 161-176
29. Kaplan S., and Kaplan R. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in An Uncertain World (1982), Preager, NY
30. Kline J., and Wechelns D. Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open spaces. Ecol. Econ. 26 (1998) 211-224
31. Litton, R.B., 1979. Descriptive approaches to landscape analysis. In: Elsner, G.H., Smardon, R.C. (Technical Coordinators), Proceedings or Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource. Incline Village, Nevada, April 23-25, 1979, pp. 77-87.
32. Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landsc. Urban Plann. 44 (1999) 177-198
33. Lynch J., and Gimblett R. Perceptual values in the cultural landscape: a computer model for assessing and mapping perceived mystery in rural environments. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 16 (1992) 453-471
34. Lynch K. The Image of the City (1960), The Technology Press and the Harvard University Press, Cambridge
35. McGarigal, K., Marks, B.J., 1994. FRAGSTATS-Spatial Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, Corvallis, OR.
36. Nassauer J. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landsc. Ecol. 6 4 (1992) 239-250
37. Nohl W. Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception-preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetic. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54 (2001) 223-237
38. O'Neill R., Krummel J., Gardner R., Sugihara G., Jackson D., Milne B., Turner M., Zygmunt B., Christensen S., Dale V., and Graham R. Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 1 3 (1988) 153-162
39. Orians G.H. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In: Penning-Rowsell E.C., and Lowethal D. (Eds). Landscape Meanings and Values (1986), Allen and Unwin, London 3-5
40. Palmer J.F. Predicting scenic perceptions in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landsc. Urban Plann. 69 (2004) 201-218
41. Palmer J., and Hoffman R. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54 (2001) 149-161
42. Palmer J., and Roos-Klein L.J. Evaluating visible spatial diversity in the landscape. Landsc. Urban Plann. 43 (1998) 65-78
43. Palmer J.F. Stability of landscape perceptions in the face of landscape change. Landsc. Urban Plann. 37 (1997) 109-113
44. Palmer J. Reliability of rating visible qualities. Landsc. J. 19 1/2 (2000) 166-178
45. Peterson G. Evaluating the quality of the wilderness environment. Environ. Behav. 6 (1974) 169-193
46. Preece R. Designs on the Landscape: Everyday Landscapes, Values and Practice (1991), Belhaven Press, London
47. Purcell T., Lamb R., Mainardi E., and Falchero S. Preference or preferences for landscape. J. Environ. Psychol. 14 (1994) 195-209
48. Purcell T., and Lamb R. Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach. Landsc. Urban Plann. 42 (1998) 57-66
49. Purcell T., Peron E., and Berto R. Why do preference differ between scene types?. Environ. Behav. 33 1 (2001) 93-106
50. Saldaña, J., Puerto, A., Gracía, J., 1986. El Paisaje: Un Estudio Ecológico de Su Diversidad en Ecosistemas Salmantinos. Serie Ciencias, No. 1, Diputación de Salamanca, Salamanca.
51. Schroeder H. Dimensions of variation in urban park design: a psychophysical analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 7 (1987) 123-141
52. Schutte N., and Mallouff J. Preference for complexity in natural landscape scenes. Percept. Motor Skills 63 (1986) 109-110
53. Scott A. Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experience. Landsc. Res. 7 3 (2002) 271-295
54. Smardon R., Palmer J., and Felleman J. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis (1986), John Wiley & Sons, NY, Chirchester, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore
55. Staats H., Gatersleben B., and Hartig T. Change in mood as a function of environmental design: arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. J. Environ. Psychol. 17 (1997) 283-300
56. Stamps A. A paradigm for distinguishing significant from non-significant visual impacts: theory, implementation, case histories. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 17 (1997) 249-293
57. Stamps A.E. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 24 1 (2004) 1-16
58. Steinitz C. Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference ands high ecological integrity: the Loop road in Acadia National Park, USA. Landsc. Urban Plann. 19 (1990) 213-250
59. Strumse E. Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 14 (1994) 293-303
60. Sullivan W., Anderson O., and Taylor S. Agricultural buffers at the rural-urban fringe: an examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the Midwestern United States. Landsc. Urban Plann. 69 (2004) 299-313
61. Todorova A., Asakawa S., and Aikoh T. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landsc. Urban Plann. 69 (2004) 403-416
62. Turner M., and Ruscher C. Changes in landscape patterns in Georgia, USA. Landsc. Ecol. 1 4 (1988) 241-251
63. Turner M., Gardner R.H., and O'Neill R.V. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. Pattern and Process (2001), Springer-Verlag, NY, Berlin, Heidelberg
64. Weinstoerffer J., and Girardin P. Assessment of the contribution of land use pattern and intensity to landscape quality: use of a landscape indicator. Ecol. Modell. 130 (2000) 95-109
65. Wohlwill J. Environmental aesthetics: the environment as a source of affect. In: Altman I., and Wohlwill J.F. (Eds). Human Behavior and Environment vol. 1 (1976), Plenum Press, NY 37-86