A simplified model to assess landscape quality from rural roads in Spain

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

Volumn 142, Issue 3-4, 2011, Pages 205-212

  Ramírez, Álvaro ^a   Ayuga Téllez, Esperanza ^a   Gallego, Eutiquio ^a   Fuentes, José María ^a   García, Ana Isabel ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Assessment methods; Landscape; Rural roads; Significant factors; Spain

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; CORRELATION; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; LAND USE PLANNING; NUMERICAL MODEL; PHOTOGRAPHY; ROAD; RURAL DEVELOPMENT; RURAL LANDSCAPE; TRANSPORT STRUCTURE;

SPAIN;

EID: 80051590707     PISSN: 01678809     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.007     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Abello R.P., Bernáldez F.G. Landscape preference and personality. Landscape Urban Plann. 1986, 13:19-28.
2. Arriaza M., Cañas-Ortega J.F., Cañas-Madueño J.A., Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 2004, 69:115-125.
3. Arthur L.M., Daniel T.C., Boster R.S. Scenic assessment: an overview. Landscape Plann. 1977, 4:109-129.
4. Gestión Sostenible de Paisajes Rurales. Técnicas e Ingeniería 2001, Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero, Madrid, Spain. F. Ayuga (Ed.).
5. Bernáldez F.G., Abello R.P., Gallardo D. Environmental challenge and environmental preference: age and sex effects. J. Environ. Manage. 1989, 28:53-70.
6. Briggs D.J., France J. Landscape Evaluation: a comparative study. J. Environ. Manage. 1980, 10:263-275.
7. Buhyoff G.J., Wellmann J.D. Seasonality bias in landscape preference research. Leisure Sci. 1979, 2:181-190.
8. Cañas I., Ayuga E., Ayuga F. A contribution to the assessment of scenic quality of landscapes based on preferences expressed by the public. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:1173-1181.
9. Cañas I. Valoración del Paisaje 1995, Universidad de Lugo, Lugo, Spain.
10. Carlson A. On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landscape Plann. 1977, 4:131-172.
11. Coeterier J.F. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 1996, 34:27-44.
12. Conover W.J. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Second ed. 1971, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
13. Daniel T.C., Boster R.S. Measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. Research Paper RM-167 1976, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
14. Dearden P. Consensus and a theoretical framework for landscape evaluation. J. Environ. Manage. 1987, 24:267-278.
15. Dunn M.C. Landscape with photographs: testing the preference approach to landscape evaluation. J. Environ. Manage. 1976, 4:15-26.
16. Fischer M.A., Shrout P.E. Children's liking of landscape paintings as a function of their perceptions of prospect, refuge, and hazard. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38:373-393.
17. Gallego E., Moya M., García A.I., Ayuga F. Valuation of low volume roads in Spain. Part 1: methodology development. Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 101:123-134.
18. Gallego E., Moya M., Piniés M., Ayuga F. Valuation of low volume roads in Spain. Part 2: methodology validation. Biosyst. Eng. 2008, 101:135-142.
19. Ghadirian P., Bishop I.D. Integration of augmented reality and GIS: a new approach to realistic landscape visualisation. Landscape Urban Plann. 2008, 86:226-232.
20. Hernández J., García L., Ayuga F. Assessment of the visual impact made on the landscape by new buildings: a methodology for site selection. Landscape Urban Plann. 2004, 68:15-28.
21. Hernández J., García L., Ayuga F. Integration methodologies for visual impact assessment of rural buildings by Geographic Information Systems. Biosyst. Eng. 2004, 88:255-263.
22. Hernández J., García L., Ayuga F. Sustainable management of rural landscapes: application of new routines implemented on G.I.S. for modelling visual relationships. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2005, 3:192-202.
23. Hollander M., Wolfe D.A. Nonparametric Statistical Methods 1999, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
24. Hull R.B., Stewart W.P. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgements. J. Environ. Psychol. 1992, 12:101-114.
25. Kaplan S. Perception and landscape: conceptions and misconceptions. Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Application 1988, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 45-55. J.L. Nasar (Ed.).
26. Kuiper F.K., Fisher L. A Monte Carlo comparison of six clustering procedures. Biometrics 1975, 31:777-783.
27. Lee J.T., Elton M.J., Thompson S. The role of GIS in landscape assessment: using land-use-based criteria for an area of the Chiltern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Land Use Policy 1999, 16:23-32.
28. Lei P.W., Koehly L.M. Linear discriminant analysis versus logistic regression: a comparison of classification errors in the two-group case. Measurement, statistics, and research design. J. Exp. Educ. 2003, 72:25-49.
29. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 1932, 140:1-55.
30. Lilliefors H.W. On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1967, 62:399-402.
31. Lothian A. Landscape and philosophy of aesthetic: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder. Landscape Urban Plann. 1999, 44:177-198.
32. Macia A. Visual perception of landscape: sex and personality differences. Proceedings of our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource 1979, pp. 279-285. G.H. Elsner, R.C. Smardon (Eds.).
33. Misgav A. Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape Urban Plann. 2000, 48:143-159.
34. Mudrak L.Y. Urban resident's landscape preferences: a method for their assessment. Urban Ecol. 1983, 7:91-124.
35. Otero I., Casermeiro M.A., Ezquerra A., Esparcia P. Landscape evaluation: comparison of evaluation methods in a region of Spain. J. Environ. Manage. 2007, 85:204-214.
36. Overall J.E., Gibson J.M., Novy D.M. Population recovery capabilities of 35 cluster analysis methods. J. Clin. Psychol. 1993, 49:459-470.
37. Palmer J.F., Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape Urban Plann. 2001, 54:149-161.
38. Pearce S.R., Waters N.M. Quantitative methods for investigating the variables that underlie preference for landscape scenes. Can. Geogr. 1983, 27:328-344.
39. Pérez J.G. Ascertaining landscape perceptions and preferences with pair-wise photographs: planning rural tourism in Extremadura. Spain Landscape Res. 2002, 27:297-308.
40. Pohar M., Blas M., Turk S. Comparison of logistic regression and linear discriminant analysis: a simulation study. Metodološki zvezki 2004, 1:143-161.
41. Purcell A.T., Lamb R.J. Landscape perception: an examination and empirical investigation of two central issues in the area. J. Environ. Manage. 1984, 19:31-63.
42. Purcell A.T. Landscape perception, preference and schema discrepancy. Environ. Plann. B 1987, 14:67-92.
43. Ribe R.G. On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty a response. Landscape Plann. 1982, 9:61-74.
44. Russell J.A., Pratt G. A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 38:311-322.
45. Schauman S. Countryside Landscape Visual Assessment, Foundations for Visual Project Analysis 1986, Wiley-Interscience, New York, USA.
46. Sevenant M., Antrop M. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90:2889-2899.
47. Shafer L., Brush R.O. How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Plann. 1977, 4:237-256.
48. Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. J. Environ. Manage. 1980, 11:61-76.
49. Smardon R.C. Prototype Visual Impact Assessment Manual 1983, Syracuse University Press, New York, USA.
50. Smardon R.C., Palmer J.F., Knopf A., Grinde K., Henderson J.E., Peyman-Dove L.D. Visual Resources Assessment Procedure for US Army Corps of Engineers. Instruction Report EL-88-1 1988, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.
51. Snedecor G.W., Cochran W.G. Statistical Methods 1989, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA, 158-160. eight ed.
52. Steinitz C. Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: The Loop Road in Acadia National Park, USA. Landscape Urban Plann. 1990, 19. 213-250.
53. Stewart T.R., Middleton P., Downton M., Ely D. Judgments of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 1984, 4:283-302.
54. Student The probable error of a mean. Biometrika 1908, 6:1-25.
55. Tassinari P., Torreggiani D. Visual impact assessment methodologies for rural building design. Agr. Eng. Int. CIGR E J. 2006, 8:1-16.
56. Tips W.E.J., Savasdisara T. The influence of the socio-economic background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landscape Urban Plann. 1986, 13:225-230.
57. Ulrich R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Behavior and the Natural Environment 1983, Plenum Press, New York, USA, pp. 85-125. I. Altman, J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.).
58. Ulrich R.S. Human response to vegetations and landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 1986, 13:29-44.
59. USDA Forest Service The Visual Management System. Agriculture Handbook number 462 1974, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, USA.
60. USDA Soil Conservation Service Procedures to Establish Priorities in Landscape Architecture 1978, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, USA.
61. USDI Bureau of Land Management Visual Resource Management 1980, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, USA.
62. USDOT Visual. Impact Assessment for Highway Projects 1981, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, USA.
63. Wherrett J.R. Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landscape Res. 2000, 25:79-96.
64. Yu K. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape Urban Plann. 1995, 32:107-126.
65. Zar J.H. Biostatistical analysis 1999, Englewood Cliffs, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. Fourth ed.
66. Zube E.H., Sell J.L., Taylor J.G. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Plann. 1982, 9:1-33.