Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents' characteristics

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 137, Issue , 2014, Pages 36-44

  Kalivoda, Ondřej ^a   Vojar, Jiří ^a   Skřivanová, Zuzana ^a   Zahradník, Daniel ^a  

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

Author keywords

Aesthetic preferences; Judgment consensus; Judgment variance; Landscape perception; Landscape scenery protection; Visual aesthetic assessment

Indexed keywords

AESTHETIC PREFERENCE; AESTHETIC QUALITIES; JUDGMENT CONSENSUS; JUDGMENT VARIANCE; LANDSCAPE PERCEPTIONS; LANDSCAPE PREFERENCES; LANDSCAPE SCENERY PROTECTION; LANDSCAPE TYPE; VISUAL AESTHETICS; VISUAL ESTHETIC ASSESSMENT;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

ASSESSMENT METHOD; KNOWLEDGE; LANDSCAPE; PERCEPTION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR;

AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ESTHETICS; HUMAN; HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC; LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY; OCCUPATION; PERCEPTION; RESIDENTIAL AREA; SEX RATIO; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONSENSUS; CZECH REPUBLIC; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONSENSUS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; CZECH REPUBLIC; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84896858812     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.009     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Angileri V., Toccolini A. The assessment of visual quality as tool for conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1993, 24(1-4):105-112. 10.1016/0169-2046(93)90089-V.
2. Arriaza M., Cañas-Ortega J.F., Cañas-Madueño J.A., Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2004, 69(1):115-125. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029.
3. Babbie E. The Practice of Sociological Research 2010, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA, USA.
4. Bulut Z., Yilmaz H. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 2008, 141:121-129. 10.1007/s10661-007-9882-0.
5. Bulut Z., Yilmaz H. Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 2009, 154(1-4):495-568. 10.1007/s10661-008-0412-5.
6. Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic Act No. 183/2006 Coll., Act on Town and Country Planning and Building Code (Building Act) 2006, Prague.
7. Clay G.R., Daniel T.C. Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2000, 49(1-2):1-13. 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00055-4.
8. Coeterier J.F. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1996, 34(1):27-44. 10.1016/0169-2046(95)00204-9.
9. Cramer D., Howitt D. The SAGE Dictionary of Statistics 2004, SAGE Publications Ltd., London.
10. Crawley M.J. The R Book 2007, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England.
11. Czech National Council Act No. 114/1992 Coll., on the Protection of Nature and the Landscape 1992, Czech National Council, Prague.
12. Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2001, 54(1-4):267-281. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4.
13. Daniel T.C., Meitner M.M. Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J.Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21:61-72. 10.1006/jevp.2000.0182.
14. Dearden P. Consensus and the landscape quality continuum: a research note. Landsc. Res. 1981, 6:31. 10.1080/01426398108705969.
15. De la Fuente de Val G., Atauri A., de Lucio J.C. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscape. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2006, 77(4):393-407. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.003.
16. Dramstad W.E., Tveit M.S., Fjellstad W.J., Fry G.L.A. Relationship between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2006, 78(4):465-474. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006.
17. Ernst M.D. Permutation methods: a basis for exact inference. Stat. Sci. 2004, 19(4):676-685. 10.1214/088342304000000396.
18. Ewald K.C. The neglect of aesthetics in landscape planning in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2001, 54(1-4):255-266. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00140-2.
19. Government of the Czech Republic.Decree No.561 of the Government of the Czech Republic Spatial Development Policy of the Czech Republic 2006, Institute of Spatial Development, Brno.
20. Fisher R.A. The Design of Experiments 1935, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, Scotland.
21. Hagerhall C.M. Consensus in landscape preference judgements. J.Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21(1):83-92. 10.1006/jevp.2000.0186.
22. Jacobsen T., Buchta K., Köhler M., Schröger E. The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychol. Rep. 2004, 94(3c):1253-1260. 10.2466/pr0.94.3c.1253-1260.
23. Jessel B. Elements, characteristics and character - information functions of landscapes in terms of indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2006, 6(1):153-167. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.009.
24. Kalivoda O., Skřivanová Z., Drábková A. Aesthetical preferences of landscape in protected area Český kras. UCOLIS 2010 - University Conference in Life Sciences - Proceedings 2010, 195-202. Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague. V. Bejček, E. Fernández, F. Jílek, M. Libra, R. Marušák, M. Sedmíková, L. Zagata (Eds.).
25. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. Cognition and Environment, Functioning in an Uncertain World 1982, Praeger, New York.
26. Kates R.W. The pursuit of beauty in the environment. Landscape 1967, 16(2):21-25.
27. Kurdoglu O., Kurdoglu B.C. Determining recreational, scenic, and historical-cultural potentials of landscape features along a segment of the ancient Silk Road using factor analyzing. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 2010, 170(1-4):99-116. 10.1007/s10661-009-1219-8.
28. Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of beholder?. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1999, 44(4):177-198. 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5.
29. Meeus J.H.A. Pan-European landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1995, 31:57-79. 10.1016/0169-2046(94)01036-8.
30. Nasar J.L., Kang J. House style preference and meanings across taste cultures. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1999, 44:33-42. 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00109-1.
31. Ode A., Fry G., Tveit M.S., Messager P., Miller D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J.Environ. Manage. 2009, 90(1):375-383. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013.
32. Palmer J.F. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2004, 69(2-3):201-218. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.010.
33. Palmer J.F., Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2001, 54:149-161. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00133-5.
34. Pekár S., Brabec M. Moderní analýza biologických dat. Zobecněné lineární modely v prostředí R 2009, Scientia, Prague, (in Czech).
35. 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(1):31-63.
36. Pynnonen D., Propst D., Vogt C., McDonough M. Role of natural and cultural features in residents' perceptions of rural character. Proceedings of the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium 2005, 32-38. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, USA. J.G. Peden, R.M. Schuster (Eds.).
37. R Development Core Team ALanguage and Environment for Statistical Computing 2009, Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
38. Rogge E., Nevens F., Gulnick H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2007, 82(4):159-174. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006.
39. Stamps A.E. Astudy in scale and character: contextual effects on environmental preferences. J.Environ. Manage. 1994, 42:223-245. 10.1006/jema.1994.1070.
40. Stamps A.E., Nasar J.L. Design review and public preferences: effect of geographical location, public consensus, sensation seeking, and architectural styles. J.Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17(1):11-32. 10.1006/jevp.1996.0036.
41. Stich Ch Development of scales for aesthetic research 2005, Dissertation, Online, (accessed 09.09.13). http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/receive/FUDISS_thesis_000000001553.
42. Strumse E. Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. J.Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14(4):293-303. 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80220-8.
43. Strumse E. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. J.Environ. Psychol. 1996, 16(1):17-31. 10.1006/jevp.1996.0002.
44. Sullivan W.C. Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: citizen preferences for natural and developed settings. Landsc. Urban Plann. 1994, 29:85-101. 10.1016/0169-2046(94)90020-5.
45. Svobodova K., Sklenicka P., Molnarova K., Salek M. Visual preferences for physical attributes of mining and post-mining landscapes with respect to the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 43:34-44. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.08.007.
46. Tveit M.S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. J.Environ. Manage. 2009, 90:2882-2888. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021.
47. Valenta J. Scénologie krajiny 2008, Nakladatelství KANT - Karel Kerlický, Prague, (in Czech).
48. Zar J.H. Biostatistical Analysis 1984, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA. second ed.