Assessing the Visual Quality of Rural and Urban-fringed Landscapes surrounding Livestock Farms

Biosystems Engineering

Volumn 95, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 437-448

  Kaplan, A ^a   Taskin T ^a   Onenc A ^a  

^a EGE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIVESTOCK FARMS; RURAL LANDSCAPES; URBAN FRINGED LANDSCAPES; VISUAL QUALITY;

DENSITY (SPECIFIC GRAVITY); ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FOOTAGE COUNTERS; VISUAL COMMUNICATION;

FARMS;

DENSITY;

EID: 33749623497     PISSN: 15375110     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2006.07.011     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Alan Mallach Associates. Environmental Assessment Handbook Vol. 4 (1977), Rogers and Golden Inc., New Jersey
2. Amedeo D., Pitt D.G., and Zube E.H. Landscape feature classification as a determinant of perceived scenic value. Landscape Journal 8 1 (1989) 36-50
3. Anderson L.M., Mulligan B.E., Goodman L.S., and Regen H.Z. Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings. Environment and Behaviour 15 (1983) 539-566
4. Aoki Y. Trends in the study of the psychological evaluation of landscape. Landscape Research 24 1 (1999) 85-94
5. Arriaza M., Cañas-Ortega J.F., Cañas-Madueño J.A., and Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (2004) 115-125
6. Balling J.D., and Falk J.H. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behaviour 14 (1982) 5-28
7. Berry D (1975). Landscape Aesthetics and Environmental Planning: A Critique of Underlying Premises. RSRI Discussion Paper Series: No. 85, Peace Dale
8. Brabec E. An evaluation of the effectiveness of cluster development in the town of Southampton, New York. Urban Ecosystems 4 (2001) 27-47
9. Brush R., Chenoweth R.E., and Barman T. Group differences in the enjoy ability of driving through rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 47 (2000) 39-45
10. Dakin S. There's more to landscape than meets the eye: towards inclusive landscape assessment in resource and environmental management. The Canadian Geographer 47 2 (2003) 185-200
11. Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54 (2001) 267-281
12. Dearden P. Public participation and scenic quality analysis. Landscape Planning 8 (1981) 3-19
13. Dee C. The imaginary texture of the real critical visual studies in landscape architecture: contexts, foundations and approaches. Landscape Research 29 1 (2004) 13-30
14. Harvey T., and Works M.A. Urban sprawl and rural landscapes: perceptions of landscape as amenity in Portland, Oregon. Local Environment 7 4 (2002) 381-396
15. Hendriks K., Stobbelaar D.J., and Van Mansvelt J.D. The appearance of agriculture: an assessment of the quality of landscape of both organic and conventional horticultural farms in West Friesland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 (2000) 157-175
16. Hendrix W.G., and Fabos J.Gy. Visual land use compatibility as a significant contributor to visual resource quality. International Journal of Environmental Studies 8 (1975) 21-28
17. Hernández J., García L., and Ayuga F. Integration methodologies for visual impact assessment of rural buildings by geographic information systems. Biosystems Engineering 88 2 (2004) 255-263
18. Hetherington J., Daniel T.C., and Brown T.C. Is motion more important than it sounds?: The medium of presentation in environmental research. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13 (1993) 283-291
19. Hull R.B., and Revell G.R.B. Issues in sampling landscapes for visual quality assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 17 (1989) 323-330
20. Hull R.B., and Stewart W.P. The landscape encountered and experienced while hiking. Environment and Behaviour 27 (1995) 404-426
21. Jakle J.A. The Visual Elements of Landscape (1987), The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst
22. Kaplan R., Kaplan S., and Ryan R.L. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature (1998), Island Press, Washington, DC
23. Keelan B.W. Handbook of Image Quality: Characterization and Prediction (2002), Marcel Dekkel Inc., New York
24. Kroh D.P., and Gimblett R.H. Comparing live experience with pictures in articulating landscape preference. Landscape Research 17 (1992) 58-69
25. Nasar J.L. The Evaluative Image of the City (1998), Sage Publications, California
26. Ndubisi F. Ecological Planning: A Historical and Comparative Synthesis (2002), The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
27. Palmer J F (1983). Visual quality and visual impact assessment. In: Social Impact Assessment Methods. (Finsterbusch K; Llewellyn L G; Wolf C P, eds) pp 244-264. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA
28. Qin X., Nakamae E., and Tadamura K. Automatically compositing still images and landscape video sequences. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 22 1 (2002) 68-78
29. Real E., Arce C., and Sabucedo J.M. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in north-western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 (2000) 355-373
30. Rønningen K (2002). Multifunctionality: applying the OECD framework. A Review of the Literature on Environmental Commodities and Rural Viability in Norway. OECD, Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Paris
31. Schauman S. Scenic value of countryside landscapes to local residents. Landscape Journal 7 1 (1988) 40-46
32. Shang H., and Bishop I.D. Visual thresholds for detection, recognition and visual impact in landscape settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20 (2000) 125-140
33. SPSS. SPSS 10 for Windows (1999), SPSS Inc., Chicago
34. Stamps A.E. A paradigm for distinguishing significant from nonsignificant visual impacts: theory, implementation, case histories. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 17 (1997) 249-293
35. Strumse E. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology 16 (1996) 17-31
36. Sullivan W.C., and Lovell S.T. Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning 77 (2006) 152-166
37. Taşki{dotless}n T., Kaplan A., Önenç A., and Hepcan C.C. Evaluation of cattle and sheep buildings with their surroundings using 'visual quality assessment' technique. Research in Agricultural Engineering 50 4 (2004) 140-151
38. The Landscape Institute, Institute of Environmental Management Assessment. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2002), Spon Press, London
39. Tyrväinen L., and Tahvanainen L. Using computer graphics for assessing the aesthetic value of large-scale rural landscapes. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 14 (1999) 282-288
40. Ulrich R.S. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 13 (1986) 29-44
41. Urban Design and Landscape Planning Units (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance: Preparation of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499). Guidance Note, No. 8/2002, Hong Kong
42. van Der Berg A.E., Vlek C.A.J., and Coeterier J.F. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 (1998) 141-157
43. Vining J; Stevens J J (1986). The assessment of landscape quality: Major methodological considerations. In: Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. (Smardon R C; Palmer J F; Felleman J P, eds), pp 167-186. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
44. Yusim O; Papadema N; de Pundert L; Berkhuysen A; Pols D (2002). Landscape Quality in Europe. European Postgraduate Course in Environmental Management Project, 2002-2, The Netherlands