Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 375-383

  Ode, Åsa ^a   Fry, Gary ^b   Tveit, Mari S ^b   Messager, Pernette ^c   Miller, David ^c  

^a Department of Landscape Architecture ^*  (Sweden)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^c SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Fragmentation; Landscape preference; Naturalness; Shape complexity; Succession; Visual indicators; Visualisation

Indexed keywords

DEMOGRAPHY; ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR; FRAGMENTATION; LANDSCAPE; NATURALNESS; PASTURE; SUCCESSION; VISUALIZATION; WOODLAND;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMMUNITY SUCCESSION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOREST; GENDER; HUMAN; LANDSCAPE; MALE; PASTURELAND;

EID: 55549098134     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Antrop M. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning 67 (2004) 9-26
2. Appleton K., and Lovett A. GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: defining 'sufficient' realism for environmental decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning 65 (2003) 117-131
3. Bakker M.M., Govers G., Kosmas C., Vanacker V., Van Oost K., and Rounsevell M. Soil erosion as a driver of land-use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105 (2005) 467-481
4. Bell S. Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Processes (1999), E & FN Spon, London
5. Bishop I.D., and Rohrmann B. Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning 65 (2003) 261-277
6. Carlson A. Nature, aesthetic appreciation, and knowledge. The Journal of Aesthetic and Art Criticism 53 (1995) 399-400
7. Daniel T.C. Measuring the quality of the natural environment - a psychophysical approach. American Psychologist 45 (1990) 633-637
8. Daniel T.C., and Boster R.S. Measuring Landscape Aesthetics: the Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. Research Paper RM-167 (1976), USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins
9. Daniel T.C., and Meitner M.J. Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21 (2001) 61-72
10. De Groot W.T., and Van den Born R.J.G. Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an exploration in The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 63 (2003) 127-138
11. European Commission (2003). http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/mtr/index_en.htm
12. European Union, 1998. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice on Environmental Matters, Aarhus, 25 June 1998.
13. Everitt B.S. The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. second ed. (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
14. Fjellstad W.J., and Dramstad W.E. Patterns of change in two contrasting Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 45 (1999) 177-191
15. Gobster P.H. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal 18 (1999) 54-64
16. Hull R.B., and Stewart W.P. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12 (1992) 101-114
17. Kaplan R., and Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature (1989), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
18. Kellert S.R. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society (1996), Shearwater Books, Washington D.C.
19. Kellert S.R., and Wilson E.O. The Biophilia Hypothesis (1993), Island Press/Shearwater Books, Washington D.C.
20. MacDonald D., Crabtree J.R., Wiesinger G., Dax T., Stamou N., Fleury P., Gutierrez Lazpita J., and Gibon A. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management 59 (2000) 47-69
21. Matthews P. Scientific knowledge and the aesthetic appreciation of nature. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60 (2002) 37-48
22. McGarigal K., Cushman S.A., Neel M.C., and Ene E. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (2002). Available from: www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
23. Messager Belveze P., and Miller D. Pictorial quality and communication information in a rural landscape context. In: Buhmann P., and Bishop L. (Eds). Trends in Real-time Landscape Visualization and Participation. Proceedings at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences. 26th-28th of May 2005, Dessau, Germany (2005), Herbert Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg 226-236
24. Nassauer J.I. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. In: Nassauer J.I. (Ed). Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology (1997), Island Press, Washington DC 67-83
25. Palmer J.F. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (2004) 201-218
26. Palmer J.F., and Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning 54 (2001) 149-161
27. Pinto-Correira T. Future development in Portuguese rural areas: how to manage agricultural support for landscape conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning 50 (2000) 95-106
28. Purcell A.T., and Lamb R.J. Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 42 (1998) 57-66
29. Rudell E., Gramann J., Rudis V., and Westphal J. The psychological utility of visual penetration in near-view forest scenic-beauty models. Environment and Behaviour 21 (1989) 393-412
30. Sang, N., Ode, Å., Miller, D. Landscape metrics and visual topology in the analysis of landscape preference. Environment and Planning B, in press. doi:10.1068/b33049.
31. Scott M.J., and Canter D.V. Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology 17 (1997) 263-281
32. Shafer E.L., and Richards T.A. A Comparison of Viewer Reactions to Outdoor Scenes and Photographs of Those Scenes. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-302 (1974), Northeastern Forest Experimental Station, Upper Darby, PA
33. Shafer E.L., Hamilton Jr. J.F., and Schmidt E.A. Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research 1 (1969) 1-19
34. Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management l (1980) 61-76
35. Tips W.E.J., and Savasdisara T. Landscape preference evaluation and the level of abstraction of landscape presentation media. Journal of Environmental Management 22 (1986) 203-213
36. Tveit M., Ode A., and Fry G. Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 31 (2006) 229-255
37. Ulrich R.S. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research 4 (1979) 14-23
38. Ulrich R.S. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 13 (1986) 29-44
39. Van Mansvelt J.D., and Kuiper J. Criteria for the humanity realm: psychology and physiognomy and cultural heritage. In: van Mansvelt D., and van der Lubbe M.J. (Eds). Checklist for Sustainable Landscape Management (1999), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam 116-134
40. ®, seventh ed. Available from: .