Can visitors visually distinguish successive coastal landscapes? A case study from the Curonian Spit (Lithuania)

Ocean and Coastal Management

Volumn 119, Issue , 2016, Pages 109-118

  Povilanskas, Ramunas ^a   Baziuke, Dalia ^a   Dučinskas, Kestutis ^a   Urbis, Arvydas ^a  

^a KLAIPEDA UNIVERSITY   (Lithuania)

Author keywords

Aesthetic quality; Curonian spit; Visual distinctiveness

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; STATISTICAL TESTS;

AESTHETIC QUALITIES; CHI-SQUARE TESTS; COASTAL LANDSCAPES; CURONIAN SPIT; STATISTICAL EVIDENCE; UNESCO WORLD HERITAGES; VISUAL DISTINCTIVENESS; VISUAL STIMULUS;

PHOTOGRAPHY;

COASTAL LANDFORM; ESTHETICS; PHOTOGRAPH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SPATIAL COGNITION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; UNESCO; VISUAL CUE; VISUALIZATION; WORLD HERITAGE SITE;

CURONIAN SPIT; LITHUANIA;

EID: 84945136110     PISSN: 09645691     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Abbelo R.P., Bernáldez F.G. Landscape preference and personality. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1986, 13:19-28.
2. Anfuso G., Williams A.T., Cabrera Hernández J.A., Pranzini E. Coastal scenic assessment and tourism management in western Cuba. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42:307-320.
3. Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape 1996, John Wiley, New York. second ed.
4. Arlinghaus R. Der unterschätzte Angler: Zukunftsperspektiven für die Angelfischerei in Deutschland 2006, Kosmos Verlags-GmbH, Stuttgart.
5. Armaitiene A., Boldyrev V.L., Povilanskas R., Taminskas J. Integrated shoreline management and tourism development on the cross-border World Heritage Site: a case study from the Curonian spit (Lithuania/Russia). J. Coast. Conserv. 2007, 11(1):13-22.
6. Arthur L.M. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests. For. Sci. 1977, 23(2):151-160.
7. Atauri J.A., Bravo M.A., Ruiz A. Visitors' landscape preferences as a tool for management of recreational use in natural areas: a case study in Sierra de Guadarrama (Madrid, Spain). Landsc. Res. 2000, 25(1):49-62.
8. Ayad Y.M. Remote sensing and GIS in modeling visual landscape change: a case study of the northwestern arid coast of Egypt. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 73:307-325.
9. Basalykas A. The Landscape of Lithuania 1977, Mokslas, Vilnius, (in Lithuanian).
10. Bell S. Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54(1-4):201-211.
11. Brown T.C., Daniel T.C. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. For. Sci. 1986, 32:471-487.
12. Chhetri P., Arrowsmith C. GIS-based Modelling of recreational potential of nature-based tourist destinations. Tour. Geogr. 2008, 10(2):233-257.
13. Chhetri P., Arrowsmith C., Jackson M. Determining hiking experiences in nature-based tourist destinations. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25(1):31-43.
14. Dalton T., Thompson R. Recreational boaters' perceptions of scenic value in Rhode Island coastal waters. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2013, 71:99-107.
15. Daniel T.C. Data visualization for decision support in environmental management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1992, 21:261-263.
16. Daniel T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54(1-4):267-281.
17. Daniel T.C., Arthur L.M., Boster R.S. Scenic assessment: an overview. Landsc. Plan. 1977, 4:109-129.
18. 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.
19. Daniel T.C., Vining J. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. Behavior and the Natural Environment, (Chapter 2) 1983, 39-83. Plenum Press, New York. I. Altman, J. Wohwill (Eds.).
20. 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. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 77:393-407.
21. De Lucio J.V., Múgica M. Landscape preferences and behavior of visitors to Spanish National Parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1994, 29:145-160.
22. 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. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105:118-127.
23. Doody J.P. Sand Dune Conservation, Management and Restoration 2013, Springer, Dordrecht.
24. Eleftheriadis N., Tsalikidis I., Manos B. Coastal landscape preference evaluation: a comparison among tourists in Greece. Environ. Manag. 1990, 14(4):475-487.
25. Emmison M., Smith P. Researching the Visual 2000, Sage, London.
26. Ervin S., Steinitz C. Landscape visibility computation: necessary, but not sufficient. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2003, 30:757-766.
27. Fairweather J.R., Swafield S.R. Visitor Experiences of Kaikoura, New Zealand: an interpretative study using photographs of landscapes and Q method. Tour. Manag. 2001, 22:219-228.
28. Floriani L.D., Magillo P. Intervisibility on terrains. Geographical Information Systems: Principle and Technical Issues 1999, vol. 1:543-556. John Wiley & Sons, New York. second ed.
29. Garrod B. A snapshot into the past: the utility of volunteer-employed photography in planning and managing heritage tourism. J. Herit. Tour. 2007, 2(1):14-35.
30. Garrod B. Exploring place perception: a photo-based analysis. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35(2):381-401.
31. Germino M.J., Reiners W.A., Blasko B.J., McLeod D., Bastian C.T. Estimating visual properties of Rocky Mountain landscapes using GIS. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 53:71-84.
32. Gobster P. An ecological aesthetic of Forest management. Landsc. J. 1999, 18(1):54-64.
33. Gobster P.H., Westphal L.M. The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68:147-165.
34. Gudelis V. The Curonian barrier spit, south-east Baltic: origin, development and coastal changes. Coastal Conservation and Management in the Baltic Region. Proceedings of the EUCC-WWF Conference, 3-7 May, 1994, Rīga-Klaipe˙da-Kaliningrad 1995, 11-13. University Publishers, Klaipe˙da. V. Gudelis, R. Povilanskas, A. Roepstorff (Eds.).
35. Gudelis V. Lithuanian Coast and Offshore 1998, Academia, Vilnius, (In Lithuanian).
36. Hagerhall C. Clustering predictors of landscapes preference in the traditional Swedish cultural landscapes: prospect-refuge, mystery, age and management. J. Environ. Psychol. 2000, 20:83-90.
37. Hull R.B., Stewart W. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty assessments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1992, 12:101-114.
38. Jacobsen J.K.S. Use of landscape perception methods in tourism studies: a review of photo-based research approaches. Tour. Geogr. 2007, 9(3):234-253.
39. Jorgensen A. Beyond the view: future directions in landscape aesthetics research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100:353-355.
40. Jorgensen A., Hitchmough J., Calvert T. Woodland spaces and edges: their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60:135-150.
41. Kaltenborn B.P., Bjerke T. Associations between landscape preferences and place attachment: a study in Røros, Southern Norway. Landsc. Res. 2002, 27(4):381-396.
42. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: a Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York.
43. Karjalainen E., Tyrväinen L. Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a finnish perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59:13-28.
44. Kaur E., Palang H., Sooväli H. Landscapes in change - opposing attitudes in Saaremaa, Estonia. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 67:109-120.
45. Kearney A.R., Bradley G.A., Petrich C.H., Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Simpson-Colebank D. Public perception as support for scenic quality regulation in a nationally treasured landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 87:117-128.
46. Krause C.L. Our visual landscape: managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54(1-4):239-254.
47. Lange E. The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54:163-182.
48. Laskey H., Seaton B., Nicholls J. Effects of strategy and pictures in travel agency advertising. J. Travel Res. 1994, 32(4):13-19.
49. Lewis J.L. Challenges of interdisciplinarity for forest management and landscape perception research. From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application 2006, 83-94. Springer, Dordrecht. B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, P. Opdam (Eds.).
50. Lien J.N., Buhyoff G.J. Extension of visual quality models for urban forests. J. Environ. Manag. 1986, 22:245-254.
51. Lim S.S., Innes J.L., Meitner M. Public awareness of aesthetic and other forest values associated with sustainable forest management: a cross-cultural comparison among the public in four countries. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 150:243-249.
52. Llobera M. Landscapes of Experiences in Stone: Notes on a Humanistic Use of a GIS to Study Ancient Landscapes 1999, (PhD thesis), Oxford University, Oxford.
53. Llobera M. Extending GIS-based visual analysis: the concept of visualscapes. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2003, 17(1):25-48.
54. Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 44:177-198.
55. Mackay K.J., Couldwell C.M. Using visitor-employed photography to investigate destination image. J. Travel Res. 2004, 42:390-396.
56. Manning R.B., Lime D.W., Freimund W.A., Pitt D.G. Crowding norms at frontcountry settings: a visual approach to setting standards of quality. Leis. Sci. 1996, 18:39-59.
57. 2 2014, accessed 12.07.14. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landscape.
58. Múgica M., de Lucio J.V. The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences. A case study at Doñana National Park (Spain). J. Environ. Manag. 1996, 47:229-239.
59. Nassauer J.I. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc. Ecol. 1995, 10(4):229-237.
60. Ode Å., Fry G., Tveit M.S., Messager P., Miller D. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90:375-383.
61. Oku H., Fukamachi K. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors through their attributes and recreational activity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75:34-42.
62. Orland B. Visualization techniques for incorporation in forest planning geographic information systems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1994, 30:83-97.
63. Ormsby J., Moscardo G., Pearce P., Foxlee J. A Review of Research into Tourist and Recreational Uses of Protected Natural Areas 2004, Research Publication No. 79, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
64. Paar P. Landscape visualizations: applications and requirements of 3D visualization software for environmental planning. Computers. Environ. Urban Syst. 2006, 30(6):815-839.
65. Palmer J.F. Reliability of rating visible landscape qualities. Landsc. J. 2000, 19(1/2):166-178.
66. Palmer J.F., Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54(1-4):149-161.
67. Parsons R., Daniel T.C. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60:43-56.
68. Pitt D.G., Zube E.H. Management of natural environments. Handbook of Environmental Psychology 1987, 1009-1042. John Wiley & Sons, New York. D. Stokols, I. Altman (Eds.).
69. Povilanskas R. Landscape Management on the Curonian Spit: a Cross-border Perspective 2004, EUCC, Klaipe˙da.
70. Povilanskas R. Spatial diversity of modern geomorphological processes on a Holocene Dune Ridge on the Curonian Spit in the South-East Baltic. Baltica 2009, 22(2):77-88.
71. Povilanskas R., Armaitiene A., Breber P., Razinkovas-Baziukas A., Taminskas J. Integrity of linear littoral habitats of lesina and Curonian Lagoons. Hydrobiologia 2012, 699(1):99-110.
72. Povilanskas R., Baghdasarian H., Arakelyan S., Satkunas J., Taminskas J. Secular morphodynamic trends of the Holocene dune ridge on the Curonian spit (Lithuania/Russia). J. Coast. Res. 2009, 25(1):209-215.
73. Povilanskas R., Chubarenko B.V. Interaction between the drifting dunes of the Curonian barrier spit and the Curonian Lagoon. Baltica 2000, 13:8-14.
74. Povilanskas R., Razinkovas-Baziukas A., Jurkus E. Integrated environmental management of transboundary transitional waters: Curonian Lagoon case study. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 101:14-23.
75. Povilanskas R., Riepsas E., Armaitiene˙ A., Ducinskas K., Taminskas J. Shifting Dune Types Curonian Spit Factors Their Dev. Baltic For. 2011, 17(2):215-226.
76. Povilanskas R., Satkunas J., Taminskas J. Results of cartometric investigations of dune morphodynamics on the Curonian spit. Geologija 2006, 53:22-27.
77. Purcell A.T., Lamb R.J., Peron E.M., Falchero S. Preference of preferences for landscape?. J. Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14(3):195-209.
78. 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. J. Environ. Psychol. 2000, 20:355-373.
79. Ribe R.G. The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught Us?. Environ. Manag. 1989, 13(1):55-74.
80. Ribe R.G. Is scenic Beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34:757-780.
81. Rolloff D.B. Scenic Quality at Crater Lake National Park: Visitor Perceptions of Natural and Human Inf1uence 1998, (PhD thesis), Oregon State University, Oregon.
82. Scarles C. Where words fail, visuals ignite: opportunities for visual autoethnography in tourism research. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010, 37(4):905-926.
83. Scott A. Assessing public perception of landscape: from practice to policy. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2003, 5(2):123-144.
84. Shafer E.L. The Photo-choice Method for Recreation Research 1964, Research Paper NE-29, USDA Forest Service.
85. Shafer E.L., Hamilton J.F., Schmidt E.A. Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model. J. Leis. Res. 1969, 1:1-19.
86. Shafer E.L., Mietz J. Aesthetic and emotional experiences rate high with northeast wilderness hikers. Environ. Behav. 1969, 1(2):187-197.
87. Shafer E.L., Richards T.A. A Comparison of Viewer Reactions to Outdoor Scenes and Photographs of Those Scenes 1974, Research Paper NE-302, USDA Forest Service.
88. Stamps A.E. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: a meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24:1-16.
89. 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.
90. Tveit M., Ode Å., Fry G. Key concepts in a Framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res. 2006, 31(3):229-255.
91. UNESCO Report of the 24th Session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, 27 November-2 December 2000, Cairns, Australia 2001, WHC-2000/CONF. 204/21, UNESCO, Paris.
92. Urry J. The Tourist Gaze 2002, Sage Publications, London - Thousand Oaks - New Delhi. second ed.
93. Vining J., Stevens J.J. The assessment of landscape quality: major methodological considerations. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis 1986, 167-186. John Wiley and Sons, New York. R.C. Smardon, J.F. Palmer, J.P. Felleman (Eds.).
94. Wherrett J.R. Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landsc. Res. 2000, 25(1):79-96.
95. Williams K.J.H., Cary J. Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34:257-274.
96. Wu Y., Bishop I., Hossain H., Sposito V. Using GIS in landscape visual quality assessment. Appl. GIS 2006, 2(3):1-20.
97. Zube E.H., Sell J.L., Taylor J.G. Landscape perception - research, application and theory. Landsc. Plan. 1982, 9:1-33.
98. Zube E.H., Pitt D.G. Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landsc. Plan. 1981, 8:69-87.