Visual quality: An examination of a south american mediterranean landscape, andean foothills east of santiago (chile)

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 261-271

  De La Fuente De Val, Gonzalo ^a   Mühlhauser S , Hermann ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALCALÁ   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD CENTRAL DE CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

Landscape assessment; Scenic beauty; Vegetation density; Visitor preferences

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; LAND TYPE; LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE; PERCEPTION; PHOTOGRAPH; RESIDENT POPULATION; VEGETATION COVER; VISUAL ANALYSIS;

CHILE; METROPOLITANA; SOUTH AMERICA;

EID: 84900489930     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.01.006     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abkar M., Kamal M., Maulan S., Davoodi S. Determining the visual preference of urban landscapes. Scientific Research and Essays 2011, 6(9):1991-1997.
2. Aoki Y. Review article: trends in the study of the psychological evaluation of landscape. Landscape Research 1999, 4(1):85-94.
3. Aronson J., Del Pozo A., Ovalle C., Avendaño J., Lavín A., Etienne M. Land use changes and conflicts in Central Chile. Landscape Degradation and Biodiversity in Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems 1998, 155-168. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. P. Rundel, G. Montenegro, F. Jaksic (Eds.).
4. Arriaza M., Cañas-Ortega J., Cañas-Madueño J., Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69(1):115-125.
5. Atauri J., Bravo M., Ruiz A. Visitors' landscape preferences as a tool management of recreational use in natural areas: a case study sierra de Guadarrama (Madrid, Spain). Landscape Research 2000, 25(1):79-96.
6. Bernáldez F. Invitación a la ecología humana. La adaptación afectiva al entorno 1985, Tecnos S. A, Madrid.
7. Bjerke T., Østdahl T., Thrane C., Strumse E. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forest and Urban Greening 2006, 5(1):35-44.
8. Bohnet I., Smith D. Planning future landscapes in the wet tropics of Australia: a social-ecological framework. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 80:137-152.
9. Bradley G., Kearney A. Public and professional responses to the visual effects of timber harvesting: different ways of seeing. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 2007, 22(1):42-54.
10. Cañas I., Ruiz M. Método de valoración del impacto paisajístico. Gestión Sostenible de Paisajes Rurales, Técnica e Ingeniería 2001, 53-79. Grupo Mundi-Prensa, Madrid. F. Ayuga (Ed.).
11. Cary J., Williams K. The value of native vegetation: urban and rural perspectives. Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation 2000, Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, (Research Report RR 3/00).
12. Daniel T. Wither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 2001, 56:267-281.
13. De la Fuente, G., (PhD Thesis), 2002. Análisis de escenarios paisajísticos y medidas de calidad escénica. estudio de casos: la sierra de guadarrama (madrid, españa) y la precordillera andina (santiago, chile), Faculty of Science, Autonomous University of Madrid.
14. De La Fuente De Val G., Atauri J., De Lucio J. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 2006, 77:393-407.
15. Filp J., Fuentes E., Donoso S., Martinic S. Environmental perception of mountain ecosystems in Central Chile: an exploratory study. Human Ecology 1983, 11(3):345-351.
16. Fuentes E., Hajek E. Patterns of landscape modification in relation to agricultural practice in Central Chile. Environmental Conservation 1979, 6:265-271.
17. Fuentes E., Espinosa G., Fuenzalida I. Cambios vegetacionales y percepción ambiental: El caso de Santiago de Chile. Revista Geografía Norte Grande 1984, 11:45-53.
18. Gómez-Limón J., de Lucio J. Changes in use and landscape preferences on the agricultural-livestock landscapes of the central Iberian Peninsula (Madrid, Spain). Landscape and Urban Planning 1999, 44:165-175.
19. Gundersen V., Frivold L. Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2008, 7:241-258.
20. Hagerhall C., Purcell T., Taylor R. Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004, 24:247-255.
21. Hanyu K. Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas after dark. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1997, 17:301-315.
22. Herzog R. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1989, 9:27-43.
23. Herzog R. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1992, 12:237-248.
24. Herzog R., Krospscott L. Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictor preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavoir 2004, 36:659-677.
25. Hoffmann A., Fuentes E. Es necesario conservar. Ecología del paisaje de Chile Central. Estudios sobre sus espacios montañosos 1988, 105-121. Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago. E. Fuentes, S. Prenafreta (Eds.).
26. Hoffmann A., Hoffmann A. Percepción de la vegetación en la cordillera de los andes, Chile Central. Studia Oecology 1980, II:39-57.
27. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature, A Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University press, Cambridge.
28. Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Ryan R. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature 1998, Island Press, Washington DC.
29. Kline P. The Handbook of Psychological Testing 1999, Routledge, London. 2nd ed.
30. Lamb R., Purcell T. Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landscape and Urban Planning 1990, 19(4):333-352.
31. Misgav A. Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning 2000, 48:143-159.
32. Nasar J., Julian D., Buchman S., Humphreys D., Mrohaly M. The emotional quality of scenes and observation points: a look at prospect and refuge. Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications 1988, 357-363. Cambridge University Press, New York. J. Nasar (Ed.).
33. Nassauer J. Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning 2012, 106:221-229.
34. Nir C. Vacationers' Attitudes Towards Vegetation Landscapes 2004, (M Sc. Thesis,), Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Israel Institute of Technology.
35. Ode Å., Fry G., Tveit M.S., Messager P., Miller D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:375-383.
36. Pennartz P., Elsinga M. Adults, adolescents and architects: differences in perception of the urban environment. Environment and Behavior 1990, 22(5):675-714.
37. Purcell T., Lamb R. Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 1998, 42:57-66.
38. Rechtman O. A Model for Visual Evaluation of Mediterranean Open Landscapes in Israel 2006, (Ph D Thesis), Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Israel Institute of Technology.
39. Ribe R. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: the interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landscape and Urban Planning 2005, 73(4):277-293.
40. Rogge E., Neves F., Gulinck H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 82(4):159-174.
41. Ryan R. Social Science to Improve Fuels Management: A Synthesis of Research on Aesthetics and Fuels Management. Gen. Tech. Rep. 2005, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, NC-261. St. Paul, MN.
42. Schroeder H. Preference and meaning of arboretum landscape: combining quantitative and qualitative data. Journal Environmental Psychology 1991, 11:231-248.
43. Schroeder H., Anderson L. Perception of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal Leisure Research 1984, 16:178-194.
44. Shelby B., Thompson J., Brunson M., Johnson J. Changes in scenic quality after harvest: a decade of ratings for six silviculture treatments. Journal Forestry 2003, 101(2):30-35.
45. Stamps A. Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: a meta-analysis. Journal Environmental Psychology 2004, 24(1):1-16.
46. Williams K., Cary J. Landscape preference, ecological quality and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior 2002, 34(2):258-275.