Visual preferences for physical attributes of mining and post-mining landscapes with respect to the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents

Ecological Engineering

Volumn 43, Issue , 2012, Pages 34-44

  Svobodova, Kamila ^a   Sklenicka, Petr ^b   Molnarova, Kristina ^b   Salek, Miroslav ^b  

^a CZECH TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE   (Czech Republic)

^b CZECH UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES PRAGUE   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Attractiveness; Post mining landscape; Recultivation; Rehabilitation; Scenic beauty; Sociodemographic factors

Indexed keywords

ATTRACTIVENESS; POST-MINING LANDSCAPE; RECULTIVATION; SCENIC BEAUTY; SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS;

PATIENT REHABILITATION; PHOTOGRAPHY;

RECLAMATION;

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; HABITAT RESTORATION; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LANDSCAPE; MINING; PERCEPTION; PHOTOGRAPH; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; SUCCESSION; VISUAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 84860254223     PISSN: 09258574     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.08.007     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Angileri V., Toccolini A. The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape Urban Plan. 1993, 24:105-112.
2. Arriaza M., Cañas-Ortega J.F., Cañas-Madueño J.A., Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 2004, 69:115-125.
3. Bergen S.D., Ulbricht C.A., Fridley J.L., Ganter M.A. The validity of computer-generated graphic images of forest landscape. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15:135-146.
4. Bishop I.D. Testing perceived landscape colour difference using the Internet. Landscape Urban Plan. 1997, 37:187-196.
5. Brown T.J., Itami R.M. Landscape principles study: procedures for landscape assessment and management - Australia. Landscape J. 1982, 1:113-121.
6. Bulut Z., Yilmaz H. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 141:121-129.
7. 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.
8. Conrad E., Christie M., Fazey I. Understanding public perceptions of landscape: a case study from Gozo, Malta. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31:159-170.
9. Crawley M.J. The R Book 2007, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester.
10. De la Fuente De Val G., Atauri J.A., De Lucio J.V. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 2006, 77:393-407.
11. Dearden P. Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation. Landscape Plan. 1984, 11:293-306.
12. Denker C. The impact of aesthetic imagination on our ethical approach towards nature. Postgraduate J. Aesthet. 2004, 1:51-58.
13. Dentoni V., Massacci G. Visibility of surface mining and impact perception. Int. J. Mining Reclamation Environ. 2007, 21:6-13.
14. Dramstad W.E., Tveit M.S., Fjellstad W.J., Fry G.L.A. Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape Urban Plan. 2006, 78:465-474.
15. Fujita K. What you see is different from what I see: species differences in visual perception. Primate Origins of Human Cognition and Behavior 2001, 29-54. Springer, Hong Kong. T. Matsuzawa (Ed.).
16. Hammitt W.E., Patterson M.E., Noe F.P. Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape Urban Plan. 1994, 29:171-183.
17. Han K.T. Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39:529-556.
18. Hancock G.R., Loch R.J., Willgoose G.R. The design of post-mining landscapes using geomorphic principles. Earth Surf. Proc. Land. 2003, 28:1097-1110.
19. Hands D.E., Brown R.D. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape Urban Plan. 2002, 58:57-70.
20. Hendrychová M. Reclamation success in post-mining landscapes in the Czech Republic: a review of pedological and biological studies. J. Landscape Stud. 2008, 1:63-78.
21. Höchtl F., Lehringer S., Konold W. "Wilderness": what it means when it becomes a reality - a case study from the southwestern Alps. Landscape Urban Plan. 2005, 70:85-95.
22. Jung C.G. Výbor zdíla: svazek II - Archetypy a nevědomí 1997, český překlad, Brno. first ed.
23. Kaplan R. Visual resources and the public: an empirical approach. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource 1979, 209-216. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-35. G.H. Elsner, R.C. Smardon (Eds.).
24. Kaplan R., Herbert E.J. Cultural and subcultural comparison in preference for natural settings. Landscape Urban Plan. 1987, 12:161-176.
25. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York.
26. Kroh D.P., Gimblett R.H. Comparing live experience with pictures in articulating landscape preference. Landscape Res. 1992, 17:58-69.
27. Lien J.N., Buhyoff G.J. Extension of visual quality models for urban forests. Environ. Manage. 1986, 22:245-254.
28. Lindemann-Matthies P., Briegel R., Schüpbach B., Junge X. Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: the impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape Urban Plan. 2010, 98:99-109.
29. Lindhjem H., Navrud S. Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:1628-1637.
30. Löw J., Míchal I. Krajinný ráz 2003, Lesnická práce, Kostelec nad černými lesy. first ed.
31. Lyons E. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environ. Behav. 1983, 15:487-511.
32. Majumder S., Sarkar K. Impact of mining and related activities on physical and cultural environment of Singrauli Coalfield - a case study through application of remote sensing techniques. Photonirvachak. J. Indian Soc. Remote Sensing 1994, 22:45-56.
33. Matell M.S., Jacoby J. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1971, 31:657-674.
34. Miller G.A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 1956, 63:81-97.
35. Misgav A. Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape Urban Plan. 2000, 48:143-159.
36. Morgan R., Williams A.T. Video panorama assessment of beach landscape aesthetics on the coast of Wales. J. Coastal Conserv. 1999, 5:13-22.
37. Newby F.L. Understanding the visual resource. The Forest Recreation Symposium 1971, 68-72. State University of New York College of Forestry, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. E. Larson (Ed.).
38. Ode Å., Fry G., Tveit M.S., Messager P., Miller D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90:375-383.
39. Oh K. A perceptual evaluation of computer-based landscape simulations. Landscape Urban Plan. 1994, 28:201-216.
40. Palmer F.J., Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessment. Landscape Urban Plan. 2001, 54:149-161.
41. Penning-Rowsell E.C. A public preference evaluation of landscape quality. Reg. Stud. 1982, 16:97-112.
42. Preston C.C., Colman A.M. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol. 2000, 104:1-15.
43. Purcell T., Lamb R., Mainardi E., Falchero S. Preference or preferences for landscape. J. Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14:195-209.
44. Ramos B., Panagopoulos T. The use of GIS in visual landscape management and visual impact assessment of a quarry in Portugal. Proceedings of the 8th International conference on Environment and Mineral Processing 2004, 73-78.
45. Reips U.-D. Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Exp. Psychol. 2002, 49:243-256.
46. Roth M. Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment - an empirical study from Germany. Landscape Urban Plan. 2006, 78:179-192.
47. Schroeder H.W. Esthetic perception of the urban forest: a utility perspective. J. Arboriculture 1989, 15:292-294.
48. Sevenant M., Antrop M. The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:827-842.
49. Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies. J. Environ. Manage. 1980, 11:61-67.
50. Simonič T. Preference and perceived naturalness in visual perception of naturalistic landscapes. Zb. Biotech. Fak. Univ. Ljublj. Kmet. 2003, 81:369-387.
51. Simpson J.W. Opportunities for visual resource management in the Southern Appalachian Coal Basin. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource 1979, 328-334. G.H. Elsner, R.C. Smardon (Eds.).
52. Sklenicka P., Kasparova I. Restoration of visual values in a post-mining landscape. J. Landscape Stud. 2008, 1:1-10.
53. Sklenicka P., Molnarova K. Visual perception of habitats adopted for post-mining landscape rehabilitation. Environ. Manage. 2010, 46:424-435.
54. Sklenicka P., Prikryl I., Svoboda I., Lhota T. Non-productive principles of landscape rehabilitation after long-term opencast mining in North-west Bohemia. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2004, 104:83-88.
55. 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.
56. Strumse E. Perceptual dimensions in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14:281-292.
57. Strumse E. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996, 16:17-31.
58. Štýs S., Dimitrovský K., JonአF., Kostruch J., Neuberg Š., Pařízek J., Patejdl C., Smolík D., Špiřík F., Thiele V., Toběrná V., Vesecký J. Rekultivace území postiŽených těŽbou nerostných surovin 1981, SNTL, Praha.
59. Tahvanainen L., Tyrvainen L., Ihalainen M., Vuorela N., Kolehmainen O. Forest management and public perceptions - visual versus verbal information. Landscape Urban Plan. 2001, 53:53-70.
60. Tips W.E.J., Savasdisara T. The influence of the socio-economic background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landscape Urban Plan. 1986, 13:225-230.
61. Tveit M., Ode Å., Fry G. Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Res. 2006, 31:229-255.
62. Ulrich R.S. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 1986, 13:29-44.
63. Valenta J. Scénologie krajiny 2008, AMU a KANT, Praha.
64. Van den Berg A.E., de Vries D.H., Viek C.A.J. Images of nature, environmental values, and landscape preference: exploring their interrelationships. Visions of Nature: A Scientific Exploration of People's Implicit Philosophies Regarding Nature in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom 2006, Lit Verlag Berlin, Munster, UK. R.J.G. van den Born, R.H.J. Lenders, W.T. de Groot (Eds.).
65. Van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L. New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 2006, 78:362-372.
66. Van den Berg A.E., Vlek C.A.J., Coeterier J.F. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. J. Environ. Psychol. 1998, 18:141-157.
67. Virden R.J. A comparison study of wilderness users and non-users: implications for managers and policymakers. J. Park Recreation Admin. 1990, 8:13-24.
68. Vizayakumar K., Mohapatra P.K.J. Environmental impact analysis of a coalfield. J. Environ. Manage. 1992, 34:79-103.
69. Vorel I. Prostorové vztahy a estetické hodnoty. Péče o krajinný ráz: cíle a metody 1999, 20-27. čVUT, Praha. I. Vorel, P. Sklenicka (Eds.).
70. Webster D.M., Kruglanski A.W. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 67:1049-1062.
71. Wherett J.R. Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research. Landscape Urban Plan. 1999, 45:209-217.
72. Williams K.J.H., Ford R.M., Bishop I.D., Loiterton D., Hickey J. Realism and selectivity in data-driven visualisations: a process for developing observer-oriented landscape surrogates. Landscape Urban Plan. 2007, 81:213-224.
73. Zube E.H., Pitt D.G., Anderson T.W. Perception and Measurement of Scenic Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley 1974, Institute for Man and his Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
74. Zuska V. Estetika - úvod do současnosti tradiční disciplíny 2001, Triton, Praha.