Assessing public perception of landscape: Past, present and future perspectives

CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources

Volumn 1, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Scott, Alister ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Culture change; Interdisciplinary research; Landscape perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449354910     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17498848     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20061041     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape. Wiley, Chichester; 1975.
2. Kaplan S. Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. In: Barkow JH, editor. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press, New York; 1992. p. 581-98.
3. Daniel TC, Boster RS. Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. USDA, Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service Research Paper No. RM-167; 1976.
4. Ittelson WH. Environmental perception and contemporary perceptual theory. In: Ittelson WH, editor. Environment and Cognition. Seminar Press, New York; 1973. p. 1-19.
5. Bourdieu P. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1977.
6. Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenology of Perception. Humanities Press, New York; 1962.
7. Palmer J. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004;69:201-8.
8. Council of Europe. European Landscape Convention, ETS 176. Available from: URL: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= Council+of+Europe+2000+landscape+Convention+&meta [accessed 20 July 2006]; 2000.
9. Scott AJ. Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experience. Landscape Research 2002;27(3):271-95.
10. Woods M. Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: windfarm development in Mid Wales. Sociologia Ruralis 2003;43(3):271-88.
11. Scott AJ. Public perception of landscape in Wales; implications for the town and country planning system. Journal of Environment Policy and Planning 2003;5(2):123-44.
12. Lee T. What kind of woodland and forest do people prefer. In: Talbot H, editor. People, Trees and Woods. Proceedings of the 1989 Countryside Recreation Conference, organized by the Countryside Recreation Research Advisory Group, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 19-21 September (CRRAG, Bristol); 1990. p. 37-51.
13. Shafer EL, Hamilton JF, Schmidt EA. Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research 1969;1:1-19.
14. Stirling A. Analysis, participation and power: justification in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy 2006;23(1):95-107.
15. Jackson T, Curry J. Peace in the woods: sustainability and democratization of land use planning and resource management on crown lands in British Columbia. International Planning Studies 2004;9(1):27-42.
16. Tress G, Tress B, Fry G. Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 2004;(20):4479-93.
17. Berleant A. The Aesthetics of Environment. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA; 1992.
18. Bruce V, Green PR, Georgeson MA. Visual Perception. Psychology Press, Hove; 1996.
19. Nasar J (editor). Environmental Aesthetics: Theory Research, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1988.
20. Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1989.
21. Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning 1982;9:1-33.
22. Linton DL. The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scottish Geographical Magazine 1968;84:219-38.
23. Coventry-Solihull-Warwickshire Sub-regional Planning Study Group. A Strategy for the Sub-region, Supplementary Report 5 'Countryside'. Warwickshire County Council, Coventry; 1971.
24. Crofts RS. The landscape component approach to Landscape evaluation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 1975;66:124-9.
25. Countryside Council for Wales. The LANDMAP Information System. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor; 2001.
26. Countryside Agency/Scottish Natural Heritage. Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. Countryside Agency, Cheltenham; 2002.
27. Tuan Y-F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Arnold, London; 1977.
28. Meinig DW (editor). The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
29. Darvill T. Landscapes: myth or reality? In: Jones M, Rotherham I, editors. Landscapes Perception, Recognition and Management: Reconciling the Impossible. Wildtrack Publishing, Sheffield; 1998. p. 8-16.
30. Mitchell D. Dead labor and the political economy of landscape - California living, California dying. In: Anderson K, Domosh M, Pile S, Thrift N, editors. Handbook of Cultural Geography. Sage, London; 2003; p. 233-48.
31. Merriman P. 'Respect the life of the countryside': the Country Code, government and the conduct of visitors to the countryside in post-war England and Wales. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 2005;30(3):336-50.
32. Ingold T. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 1993;25(2):152-74.
33. Setten G. Farmers, Planners and the Moral Message of Landscape and Nature. Ethics, Place and Environment 2001;4:220-25.
34. Porteous JD. Smellscape. Progress in Human Geography 1985;9(3):356-78.
35. Parsons R, Daniel TC. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002;60(1):43-56.
36. Duffield BS, Coppock JT. The delineation of recreational landscapes: the role of computer nased information systems. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 1975;66(2):141-8.
37. Gold JR. An Introduction to Behavioural Geography. Oxford University Press, London; 1980.
38. Seddon A. Landscape planning: a conceptual perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 1986;13:335-47.
39. Kent RL. Attributes, features and reasons for enjoyment of scenic routes: a comparison of experts, residents and citizens. Landscape Research 1993;18(2):92-102.
40. Penning-Rowsell EC. Assessing the validity of landscape evaluations. Landscape Research 1981;6(2):22-4.
41. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Geneva, UNECE; 1998.
42. Beierle T, Konisky DM. What are gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environment and Planning C 2001;(19):515-27.
43. Appleton K, Lovett A. GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: defining 'sufficient' realism for environmental decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003;65(3):117-31.
44. Bell S. Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001;54(1-4):201-11.
45. Tyrväinen L, Gustavsson R, Konijnendijk C, Ode Å. Visualization and landscape laboratories in planning, design and management of urban woodlands. Forest Policy and Economics 2006;8:811-23.
46. Orland BBKUJ. Considering virtual worlds as representations of landscape realities and as tools for landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001;54:139-48.
47. Landscape Institute. Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Landscape Institute, London; 2002.
48. Wherret JR. Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landscape Research 2000;75(1):79-96.
49. Beinat E, Nijkamp P (editors). Multicriteria Analysis for Landuse Management. Kluwer, Dordrecht; 1998.
50. Bishop ID, Ye W-S, Karadaglis C. Experiential approaches to perception response in virtual worlds. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001;54(1-4):117-25.
51. Bishop ID, Rohrmann B. Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003;65(4):261-77.
52. Hirtz P, Hoffman H, Nuesch D. Interactive 3D landscape visualization: improved realism through use of remote sensing data and geoinformation. Proceedings of Computer Graphics International. 1999. Available from: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/CGI.1999.777922
53. Iwata H, Fujii T. Virtual perambulator: a novel interface device for locomotion in virtual environment. Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium. 1996. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel2/ 3517/10587/00490511.pdf?tp=&arnumber=490511&isnumber=10587
54. Lange E. The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001;54(1-4):163-82.
55. Palmer JF, Hoffman RE. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001;54(1-4):149-61.
56. Daniel TC, Meitner MM. Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2001;21(1):61-72.
57. Stedman R, Beckley T, Wallace S, Armbard M. A picture and 1000 words: using resident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places (vol. 36, p. 580, 2004). Journal of Leisure Research 2005;37(2):IV.
58. Scarles C. Mediating landscape: the processes and practices of image construction in tourist brochures of Scotland. Tourist Studies 2004;4(1):43-67.
59. Schuster E, Johnson SS, Taylor JG. Wilderness experience in Rocky Mountain National Park 2002: Report to RMNP - January 2004. US Geological Survey, Fort Collins, CO; 2006.
60. Lees J, Ingold T. Fieldwork on foot: perceiving, routing, socialising. In: Coleman S, Collins P, editors. Locating the Field. Space, Place and Context in Anthropology. Berg, Oxford; 2006. p. 67-86.
61. Swanwick C. Techniques and criteria for judging capacity and sensitivity. Topic Paper No. 6. In: Countryside Agency 2004. Landscape Character Assessment, Guidance for England and Scotland. Countryside Agency, Cheltenham; 2004.
62. Hull RB, Stewart W. The landscape encountered while hiking. Environment and Behavior 1995;27(3):404-26.
63. Lynch K, Rivkin M. A walk around the block. In: Banerjee T, Southworth M, editors. City Sense and City Design: Writings and Projects of Kevin Lynch. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; 1990. p. 185-204.
64. Scott AJ, Shorten J. What sort of Countryside do we want, report to the Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff, UK; 2004.
65. Anderson LM, Mulligan BE, Goodman LS, Regen HZ. Effects of Sounds on preferences for outdoor settings. Environment and Behavior 1983;15(5):539-66.
66. Porteous JD, Mastin JF. Soundscape. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 1985;2(3):169-78.
67. Latham A. Research, performance, and doing human geography: some reflections on the diary-photograph, diaryinterview method. Environment and Planning A 2003;35(11):1993-2017.
68. Witzel A. Das problemzentrierte Interview. In: Jttemann G, editor. Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Assanger, Heidelberg; 1989. p. 227-55.
69. Daniel TC, Vining J. Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Landscape Quality. Plenum Press, New York; 1983.
70. Wylie J. An essay on ascending Glastonbury Tor. Geoforum 2002;33:451-4.
71. McIntyre N, Roggenbuck JW. Nature/person transactions during an outdoor adventure experience: a multi-phasic analysis. Journal of Leisure Research 1998;30(4):401-22.
72. Anderson A. Talking whilst walking: a geographical archaeology of knowledge. Area 2004;36(3):254-8.
73. Ittleson WH, Franck KA, O'Hanlon TJ. The nature of environmental experience. In: Wapner S, Cohen B, Kaplan B, editors. Experiencing the Environment. Plenum Press, New York; 1976. p. 87-105.
74. Tress B, Tress G, Fry G. Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 2005;70(1/2):177-91.
75. Selman P. Multi-function landscape plans: a missing link in sustainability planning? Local Environment 2002;7(3):283-94.
76. Ratcliffe DA (editor). A Nature Conservation Review. Cambridge University Press, London; 1977.