Unearthing the picturesque: The validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 124, Issue , 2014, Pages 1-13

  van der Jagt, Alexander P N ^a,b   Craig, Tony ^b   Anable, Jillian ^a   Brewer, Mark J ^c   Pearson, David G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^c BIOMATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS SCOTLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Built environment; Familiarity; Landscape aesthetics; Natural environment; Preference matrix

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY;

BUILT ENVIRONMENT; EVIDENCE-BASED DESIGNS; FAMILIARITY; LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS; MIXED EFFECTS MODELS; NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS; NON-LINEAR RELATIONSHIPS; STATISTICAL CONTROL;

USER EXPERIENCE;

DATABASE; ESTHETICS; LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; PRISTINE ENVIRONMENT; PSYCHOLOGY;

EID: 84894430319     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.006     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Agresti A. Analysis of ordinal categorical data 1984, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
2. Appleton J. The experience of landscape 1975, Wiley, London.
3. Arriaza M., Canas-Ortega J., Canas-Madueno J., Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69(1):115-125. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029.
4. Aspinall P.A. On avoiding research into the blindingly obvious. Architectoni.Ca 2012, 1:74-82.
5. Baayen R.H., Davidson D.J., Bates D.M. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59(4):390-412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.
6. Bates D., Maechler M., Bolker B. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999375-42) [Software] 2011, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, Available from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
7. Beck N., Jackman S. Beyond linearity by default: Generalized additive models. American Journal of Political Science 1998, 42(2):596-627. 10.2307/2991772.
8. Berlyne D.E. Aesthetics and psychobiology 1971, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
9. Bishop I.D., Hulse D.W. Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information-systems. Landscape and Urban Planning 1994, 30(1-2):59-70. 10.1016/0169-2046(94)90067-1.
10. Buijs A.E., Elands B.H.M., Langers F. No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 91(3):113-123. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003.
11. Coeterier J. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 1996, 34(1):27-44. 10.1016/0169-2046(95)00204-9.
12. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 1988, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. 2nd ed.
13. Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 54(1-4):267-281. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4.
14. Daniel T.C., Boster R.S., Forest R.M. Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method (USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-167) 1976, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Fort Collins, CO.
15. Daniel T.C., Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research 1983, Vol. 6:39-84. Plenum Press, New York.
16. De Groot W.T., van den Born R.J.G. Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: An exploration in The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003, 63(3):127-138. 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00184-6.
17. De Vries S., de Groot M., Boers J. Eyesores in sight: Quantifying the impact of man-made elements on the scenic beauty of Dutch landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2012, 105(1-2):118-127. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.005.
18. Draper N.R., Smith H. Applied regression analysis 1981, Wiley, New York. 2nd ed.
19. Fei-Fei L., Iyer A., Koch C., Perona P. What do we perceive in a glance of a real-world scene?. Journal of Vision 2007, 7(1):1-29. 10.1167/7.1.10.
20. Gobster P.H. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal 1999, 18(1):54-64. 10.3368/lj.18.1.54.
21. Gobster P.H., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T.C., Fry G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landscape Ecology 2007, 22(7):959-972. 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x.
22. Greene M.R., Oliva A. The briefest of glances: The time course of natural scene understanding. Psychological Science 2009, 20(4):464-472. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02316.x.
23. Greene M.R., Oliva A. Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: Seeing the forest without representing the trees. Cognitive Psychology 2009, 58(2):137-176. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.06.001.
24. Hadfield J.D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: The MCMCglmm R package. Journal of Statistical Software 2010, 33(2):1-22. Available from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v33/i02/.
25. Hammitt W.E., Patterson M.E., Noe F.P. Identifying and predicting visual preference of Southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning 1994, 29(2-3):171-183. 10.1016/0169-2046(94)90026-4.
26. Han K. An exploration of relationships among the responses to natural scenes: Scenic beauty, preference, and restoration. Environment and Behavior 2010, 42(2):243-270. 10.1177/0013916509333875.
27. Herzog T.R. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1989, 9(1):27-43. 10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80024-6.
28. Herzog T.R., Bosley P.J. Tranquillity and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1992, 12(2):115-127. 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80064-7.
29. Herzog T.R., Bryce A.G. Mystery and preference in within-forest setting. Environment and Behavior 2007, 39(6):779-796. 10.1177/0013916506298796.
30. Herzog T.R., Kaplan S., Kaplan R. The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment 1982, 5(1):43-59. 10.1007/BF01359051.
31. Herzog T.R., Kirk K.M. Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and danger in forest settings. Environment and Behavior 2005, 37(5). 10.1177/0013916505275306.
32. Herzog T.R., Kropscott L.S. Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior 2004, 36(5):659-677. 10.1177/0013916504264138.
33. Herzog T.R., Kutzli G.E. Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior 2002, 34(6):819-835. 10.1177/001391602237250.
34. Herzog T.R., Leverich O.L. Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior 2003, 35(4):459-477. 10.1177/0013916503251455.
35. Howley P. Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics 2011, 72:161-169. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026.
36. Kaltenborn B.P., Bjerke T. Associations between landscape preferences and place attachments: A study in Røros, Southern Norway. Landscape Research 2002, 27(4):381-396. 10.1080/0142639022000023943.
37. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York.
38. Kaplan S. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior 1987, 19(1):3-32. 10.1177/0013916587191001.
39. Kaplan S., Talbot J.F. Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research 1983, Vol. 6.:163-203. Plenum Press, New York.
40. Koole S.L., Van den Berg A.E. Lost in the wilderness: Terror management, action control, and evaluations of nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005, 88(6):1014-1028. 10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.1014.
41. Kuha J. AIC and BIC - comparisons of assumptions and performance. Sociological Methods & Research 2004, 33(2):188-229. 10.1177/0049124103262065.
42. Loschky L.C., Larson A.M. The natural/man-made distinction is made before basic-level distinctions in scene gist processing. Visual Cognition 2010, 18(4):513-536. 10.1080/13506280902937606.
43. Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landscape and Urban Planning 1999, 44(4):177-198. 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5.
44. McCullagh P. Regression-models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Methodological 1980, 42(2):109-142.
45. Molnarova K., Sklenicka P., Stiborek J., Svobodova K., Salek M., Brabec E. Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics. Applied Energy 2012, 92:269-278. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.001.
46. Nasar J.L. Urban design aesthetics - the evaluative qualities of building exteriors. Environment and Behavior 1994, 26(3):377-401. 10.1177/001391659402600305.
47. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2010, 15(5):625-632. 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y.
48. Ode A., Fry G., Tveit M.S., Messager P., Miller D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90(1):375-383. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013.
49. Oliva A., Torralba A. Modeling the shape of the scene: A holistic representation of the spatial envelope. International Journal of Computer Vision 2001, 42(3):145-175. 10.1023/A:1011139631724.
50. Orians G.H., Heerwagen J.H. Evolved responses to landscapes. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. 1992, 555-579. Oxford University Press, New York. J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, J. Tooby (Eds.).
51. Parsons R., Daniel T.C. Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 60(1):43-56. 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00051-8.
52. Peron E., Berto R., Purcell T. Restorativeness, preference and the perceived naturalness of places. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano 2002, 3(1):19-34.
53. Purcell A.T. Landscape perception, preference, and schema discrepancy. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design 1987, 14(1):67-92. 10.1068/b140067.
54. Purcell A.T., Peron E., Berto R. Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment and Behavior 2001, 33(1):93-106. 10.1177/00139160121972882.
55. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2.15.0) [Software] 2011, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, Available from http://www.R-project.org.
56. Real E., Arce C., Sabucedo J.M. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in North-Western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2000, 20(4):355-373. 10.1006/jevp.2000.0184.
57. Staats H., Gatersleben B., Hartig T. Change in mood as a function of environmental design: Arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1997, 17(4). 10.1006/jevp.1997.0069.
58. Stamps A. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004, 24(1):1-16. 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00023-9.
59. Taylor R.P., Spehar B., Van Donkelaar P., Hagerhall C.M. Perceptual and physiological responses to Jackson Pollock's fractals. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2011, 5:60.
60. Tveit M., Ode A., Fry G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research 2006, 31(3):229-255. 10.1080/01426390600783269.
61. Ulrich R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research 1983, Vol. 6.:85-125. Plenum Press, New York.
62. Van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L. New wilderness in The Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 78(4):362-372. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006.
63. 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. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1998, 18(2):141-157. 10.1006/jevp.1998.0080.
64. White M., Smith A., Humphryes K., Pahl S., Snelling D., Depledge M. Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2010, 30(4):482-493. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004.
65. Wohlwill J.F. Human adaption to levels of environmental stimulation. Human Ecology 1974, 2:127-147. 10.1007/BF01558117.
66. Wohlwill J.F. The concept of nature: A psychologist's view. Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research 1983, Vol. 6.:5-38. Plenum Press, New York.
67. Woodcock D.M. A functionalist approach to landscape preference. Landscape Research 1984, 9(2):24-27. 10.1080/01426398408706109.
68. Yang B.E., Brown T.J. A cross-cultural-comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environment and Behavior 1992, 24(4):471-507. 10.1177/0013916592244003.