The dual role of roads in the visual landscape: A case-study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium)

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 92, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 125-135

  Garré, Sarah ^a   Meeus, Steven ^a   Gulinck, Hubert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Effect display; Group differences; Landscape quality; Logit model; Road; Visual impact

Indexed keywords

LOGISTIC REGRESSION; ROADS AND STREETS;

ARTIFICIAL MATERIAL; GROUP DIFFERENCES; INFORMATION CONTENTS; LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS; LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTIC; LOGIT MODELING; ROAD; VISUAL IMPACTS;

HIGHWAY PLANNING;

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE; PERCEPTION; ROAD; RURAL AREA; SPACE USE;

ANTWERP [BELGIUM]; BELGIUM; BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; MECHELEN; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 67649774257     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. B.N. Petrov Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest (1973) 267-281
2. Antrop, M., Van Eetvelde, V., Janssens, J., Martens, I., Van Damme, S., 2002. Traditionele landschappen van het Vlaamse Gewest. http://geoweb.ugent.be/lr/research/docs/tradla/tradla.pdf. [Last access date: 29.01.2009] (in Dutch).
3. Antrop M. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 67 (2004) 9-26
4. Appleton J. Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Trans. Inst. Brit. Geogr. 66 (1975) 120-123
5. Baldwin J., Fisher P., Wood J., and Langford M. Modelling environmental cognition of the view with GIS. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Integrated GIS and Environmental Modelling. Santa Fe, New Mexico (1996)
6. Bell S. Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process (1999), E. & F.N. Spon, London
7. Bernaldez F.G., Gallardo D., and Abello R.P. Children's landscape preferences: from rejection to attraction. J. Environ. Psychol. 7 (1987) 169-176
8. Brush R., Chenoweth R.E., and Barman T. Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 47 (2000) 39-45
9. Buyhoff G.J., Wellman J.D., Harvey H., and Fraser R.A. Landscape architects' interpretation of people's landscape preferences. J. Environ. Manage. 6 (1978) 255-262
10. Clay G., and Daniel T. Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landsc. Urban Plan. 49 (2000) 1-13
11. Clay G.R., and Smidt R.K. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 66 (2004) 239-255
12. Coeterier J.F. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 34 (1996) 27-44
13. Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention and Explanatory Report. Council of Europe, Document by the Secretary General established by the General Directorate of Education, Culture, Sport and Youth, and Environment. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/176.htm [Last access date: 26.01.2009].
14. Dawes J. Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. Int. J. Market Res. 50 (2008) 61-77
15. Dirkx J., and Roos-Klein Lankhorst J. Forum: Verstedelijking en de kwaliteit van het landschap (Forum: urbanization and landscape quality). Landscape 23 (2006) 57-61 (in Dutch)
16. Fox J. Effect displays in generalized linear models. Sociol. Methodol. 17 (1987) 347-361
17. Fox J. Effect displays in R for generalized linear models. J. Stat. Softw. 8 (2003) 1-18
18. Fox J., and Andersen R. Effect displays for multinomial and proportional odds logit models. Sociol. Methodol. 36 (2006) 225-255
19. Froment J., and Domon G. Viewer appreciation of highway landscapes: the contribution of ecologically managed embankments in Quebec, Canada. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78 (2006) 14-32
20. Granö, J.G., 1929. Reine Geographie. Eine methodologische Studie beleuchtet mit Beispielen aus Finnland und Estland (Pure geography. A methodological study illustrated with examples from Finland and Estonia). Acta Geographica, 2 (2), Helsingfors, Helsinki (in German).
21. Granö J.G. Pure Geography (1997), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, London
22. Gulinck H., Dufourmont H., and Walpot O. Landschapsanalyse met SPOT (landscape analysis based on SPOT imagery). Landscape 9 (1992) 137-254 (in Dutch)
23. Gulinck H., Dufourmont H., and Stas I. Approach to landscape character using satellite imagery and spatial analysis tools. In: Usher M.B. (Ed). Landscape Character. Perspectives on Management and Change (1999), TSO, Edinburgh 127-134
24. Gunderman, E., 1981. Die Auswirkungen des Forststraßenbaus in Hochgebirge auf die Walderholung und das Landschafsbild. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt, 100.JG, 65-75.
25. Herzog T.R. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. J. Environ. Psychol. 5 (1985) 225-241
26. Herzog T.R. A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: mountains, canyons and deserts. Landsc. J. 6 (1987) 140-152
27. Herzog T.R., Herbert E.J., Kaplan R., and Crooks C.L. Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environ. Behav. 32 (2000) 323-346
28. Hetherington J., Daniel T., and Brown T.C. Is motion more important than it sounds?. Landsc. Res. 17 (1993) 58-69
29. Hoisl, R., Nohl, W., Zekorn, S., Zöllner, G., 1987. Landschaftsästhetik in der Flurbereinigung. Empirische Grundlagen zum Erlebnis der Agrarlandschaft (Landscape aesthetics in land consolidation projects. Empirical principles about the perception of the agricultural landscape) Materialien zur Flurbereinigung 11. München: Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (in German).
30. Kaplan R. Predictors of environmental preference: designers and 'clients'. In: Preiser W.F.E. (Ed). Environmental Design Research (1973), Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg, PA 265-274
31. Kaplan R., and Kaplan S. Cognition and Environment. Functioning in an Uncertain World (1983), Ulrichs Bookstore, Ann Arbor, MI
32. Kaplan S., Kaplan R., and Wendt J. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Percept. Psychophys. 12 (1972) 354-356
33. Kaplan S. Aesthetics, affect and cognition: environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environ. Behav. 19 (1987) 3-32
34. Kaplan S., and Kaplan R. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective (1989), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
35. Leitão A.B., Miller J., Ahern J., and McGarigal K. Measuring Landscapes: A Planners Handbook (2006), Island Press, Washington, DC
36. Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 44 (1999) 177-198
37. Lyons E. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environ. Behav. 15 (1983) 487-511
38. McGarigal, K., Marks, B.J., 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-351.
39. Maddison D., Pearce D., and Johansson O. Blueprint 5: The True Costs of Road Transport (1996), James & James Earthscan, London
40. Meienberg, P., 1966. Bildmappe zu die landnutzungskartierung nach Pan-, Infrarot- und Farbluftbildern. Ein Beitrag zur agrargeographischen Luftbildinterpretation und zu den Möglichkeiten der Luftbildphotographie (Album of agricultural land use after Pan-, Infrared and Satellite images. A contribution to agro-geographical aerial photo interpretation and to the possibilitis of aerial photography). Verlag Michael Lassleben, Kallmünz (in German).
41. Michels, T., Jaarsma, C.E., 1988. Minor rural roads. Planning, design and evaluation, in: European workshop minor rural roads. PUDOC, Wageningen.
42. Middleton W.E.K. Vision through the Atmosphere (1968), University of Toronto Press, Toronto
43. Múgica M., and de Lucio J.V. The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences. A case study at Donana National Park (Spain). J. Environ. Manage. 47 (1996) 229-239
44. Nassauer J. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc. Ecol. 10 (1995) 229-237
45. NGI. Topographical Map 1:10.000 (2004), National Geographical Institute, Belgium
46. Palmer J.F., and Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54 (2001) 149-161
47. Patsfall R., and Feimer N. The prediction of scenic beauty from landscape content and composition. J. Environ. Psychol. 4 (1984) 7-26
48. Pauwels F., and Gulinck H. Changing minor rural road networks in relation to landscape sustainability and farming practices in West Europe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77 (2000) 95-99
49. Penning-Rowsell E.C., and Lowenthal D. Landscape Meanings and Values (1986), Allen and Unwin, London
50. Poullaouec-Gonidec P., Domon G., Paquette S., and Montpetit C. Roadside vegetation management on Quebec's highways: a visual landscape monitoring research project. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. Calgary, Alta., Canada (2000) 155-163
51. Purcell A.T., and Lamb R.J. Landscape perception: an examination and empirical investigation of two central issues in the area. J. Environ. Manage. 19 (1984) 31-62
52. Reips, U.-D., 1997. Das psychologische Experimentieren im Internet (Psychological experiments in the Internet). Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany (in German).
53. Reips U.-D. Standards for internet-based experimenting. Exp. Psychol. 49 (2002) 243-256
54. Rogge E., Nevens F., and Gulinck H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 82 (2007) 159-174
55. Roth M. Validating the use of internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment-an empirical study from Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78 (2006) 179-192
56. RSV, 2003. Ruimtelijk structuurplan Vlaanderen (Spatial Layout of Flanders). Ministry of Flemish Community (in Dutch).
57. Sander H., and Manson S. Heights and locations of artificial structures in viewshed calculation: how close is close enough?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 82 (2007) 257-270
58. Schofield D., and Cox C. The use of virtual environments for percentage view analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 76 (2005) 342-354
59. Scott A. Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experience. Landsc. Res. 27 (2002) 271-295
60. Scott K., and Benson F. Public and Professional Attitudes to Landscape: Scoping Study (2002), Landscape Research Group, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape, University of Newcastle, Newcastle
61. Sevenant M., and Antrop M. Settlement models, land use and visibility in rural landscapes: two case studies in Greece. Landsc. Urban Plan. 80 (2007) 362-374
62. Shafer, E.L., Richards, T.A., 1974. A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-302.
63. Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. J. Environ. Manage. 11 (1980) 61-76
64. Strumse E. Environmental attributes and the prediction of preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 14 (1994) 293-303
65. Strumse E. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 16 (1996) 17-31
66. Tunnard C., and Pushkarev B. Man-made America: Chaos or Control? (1963), Yale University Press, New Haven/London
67. Van den Berg A.E., and Koole S.L. New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78 (2006) 362-372
68. Van der Ham R., Schut G., and Iding J. Een voorstel voor een nieuwe landschapstypologie naar visuele kenmerken (a proposal for a new landscape typology based on visual characteristics). Stedebouw en Volkshuisvesting 51 (1970) 421-438 (in Dutch)
69. Van Eetvelde V., and Antrop M. The significance of landscape relic zones in relation to soil conditions, settlement patterns and territories in Flanders. Landsc. Urban Plan. 70 (2005) 127-141
70. Wherret J. Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landsc. Res. 25 (2000) 79-96
71. Wolf K.L. Public response to the urban forest in inner-city business districts. J. Arboric. 29 (2003) 117-126
72. Zube E.H., and Pitt D.G. Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landsc. Plan. 8 (1981) 69-87
73. Zube E.H., Pitt D.G., and Evans G.W. A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. J. Environ. Psychol. 3 (1983) 115-128