Landscape character assessment with GIS using map-based indicators and photographs in the relationship between landscape and roads

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 180, Issue , 2016, Pages 324-334

  Martín, Belén ^a   Ortega, Emilio ^a   Otero, Isabel ^a   Arce, Rosa M ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Geographic information systems; Indicator; Landscape character evaluation; Landscape planning; Landscape visual quality

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION USE; PHOTOGRAPHY; QUALITY CONTROL;

CASE-STUDIES; ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES; LANDSCAPE CHARACTER EVALUATION; LANDSCAPE CHARACTERS; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE VISUAL QUALITY; MADRID REGION; NOVEL SERIES; PLANNING AND MONITORING; VISUAL QUALITIES;

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

COMPLEXITY; DESIGN; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR; GIS; LAND EVALUATION; LANDSCAPE PLANNING; MAP; MOTORWAY; PHOTOGRAPH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; ROAD; VISUAL ANALYSIS;

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM; HIGHWAY; LANDSCAPE; PERCEPTION; PHOTOGRAPHY; SPAIN; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PROCEDURES; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; TRAVEL;

MADRID [SPAIN]; SPAIN;

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; SPAIN; TRAVEL;

EID: 84969961993     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.044     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Antonson H. Bridging the gap between research and planning practice concerning landscape in Swedish infrastructural planning. Land Use Policy 2009, 4:169-177.
2. Atik M., Işikli R.C., Ortaçeşme V., Yildirim E. Definition of landscape character areas and types in side region, Antalya-Turkey with regard to land use planning. Land Use Policy 2015, 44:90-100.
3. Brown G., Brabyn L. An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107:317-331.
4. Cañas I. Introducción Al Paisaje 1995, Unicopia, Madrid.
5. 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, 10:1173-1181.
6. Carlson A.A. Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: seeing and knowing. Forests and Landscapes- Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics 2001, 31-41. IUFRO Research Series. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. S.R.J. Sheppard, H.W. Harshaw (Eds.).
7. Churchward C., Palmer J.F., Nassauer J.I., Swanwick C.A. NCHRP Report 741: Evaluation of Methodologies for Visual Impact Assessments 2013, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Wash.D.C.
8. Clay R., Smidt R.K. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 66:239-255.
9. Coeterier J.F. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1996, 34:27-44.
10. Consejo de Europa Convenio Europeo del Paisaje 2000, Consejo de Europa, Firenze.
11. de Groot M., Winnubst, M.H., van Schie N., van Ast J.A. Visioning with the public: incorporating public values in landscape planning. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014, 22(6):1165-1181.
12. 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. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78:465-474.
13. Froment J., Domon G. Viewer appreciation of highway landscapes: the contribution of ecologically managed embankments in Quebec, Canada. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78:14-32.
14. Fry G., Tveit M.S., Ode A., Velarde M.D. The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9:933-947.
15. Garré S., Meeus S., Gulinck H. The dual role of roads in the visual landscape: a case-study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 92:125-135.
16. Gobster P., Nassauer J.I., Daniel T., Fry G. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22:959-972.
17. Gudmundsson H. Annex VII. Unconsolidated indicator selection critera. Indicators of Environmental Sustainability in Transport. An Interdisciplinary Approach to Methods 2010, 347-348. Les collections de L'Inrets, France. R. Joumard, H. Gudmundsson (Eds.).
18. Gulinck H., Múgica M., de Lucio J.V., Atauri J.A. A framework for comparative landscape analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Madrid region (Spain). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 55(4):257-270.
19. IGN Modelo digital de elevaciones 2009, (1:25.000), Centro Nacional de Información Geográfica, Madrid.
20. IGN Plan Nacional de Ortofotografía Aérea 2010, Centro Nacional de Información Geográfica, Madrid.
21. IGN Sistema de Información sobre Ocupación del Suelo de España 2011, Centro Nacional de Informacíón Geográfica, Madrid.
22. Jellema A., Stobbelaar D.J., Groot J.C.J., Rossing W.A.H. Landscape character assessment using region growing techniques in geographical information systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90(2):S161-S174.
23. Kalivoda O., Vojar J., Skrivanová S., Zahradník D. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: the effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents' characteristics. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 137:36-44.
24. Kim K.H., Pauleit S. Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: the case of Kwangju City Region, South Korea. Land Use Policy 2007, 24(1):264-274.
25. Llausàs A., Nogué J. Indicators of landscape fragmentation: the case for combining ecological indices and the perceptive approach. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 15(1):85-91.
26. Mancebo Quintana S., Martín Ramos B., Casermeiro Martínez M.A., Otero Pastor I. A model for assessing habitat fragmentation caused by new infrastructures in extensive territories - evaluation of the impact of the Spanish strategic infrastructure and transport plan. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91(5):1087-1096.
27. Martín B., Otero I. Mapping the visual landscape quality in Europe using physical attributes. J. maps 2012, 8:56-61.
28. Martín B., Merás B., Otero I., Ortega E. Comparación de métodos de evaluación de la calidad escénica del paisaje alrededor de las autopistas españolas. Carreteras 2012, 183:207-220.
29. Mata Olmo R. El paisaje, patrimonio y recurso para el desarrollo territorial sostenible. Conocimiento y acción pública. ARBOR Cienc. Pensam. Cult. 2008, 729:155-172.
30. Mata Olmo R., Sanz Herráiz C. Atlas de los paisajes de España 2003, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid.
31. Mcgarigal K., Marks B.J. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure 1995, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland. Oregon.
32. Ode Sang A., Tveit M.S. Perceptions of stewardship in Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:557-564.
33. Ode A., Tveit M.S., Fry G. Advantages of using different data sources in assessment of landscape change and its effect on visual scale. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10:24-31.
34. Ortega E., Otero I., Mancebo S. TITIM GIS-tool: a GIS-based decision support system for measuring the territorial impact of transport infrastructures. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41:7641-7652.
35. Otero I., Casermeiro M.A., Ezquerra A., Esparcia P. Landscape evaluation: comparison of evaluation methods in a region of Spain. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 10:204-214.
36. Otero I., Mancebo S., Ortega E., Casermeiro M.A. Mapping landscape quality in Spain. M+A Rev. Electrónic@ Medioambiente 2007, 4:18-34.
37. Palmer J.F. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69(2-3):201-218.
38. Palmer J.F., Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54(1-4):149-161.
39. Ramírez A., Ayuga E., Fuentes J.M., García A.I. A simplified model to assess landscape quality from rural roads in Spain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 142:205-212.
40. Rogge E., Nevens F., Gulinck H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 82:159-174.
41. Sevenant S., Antrop M. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90:2889-2899.
42. Tveit M.S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference: a comparison between groups. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90:2882-2888.
43. Tveit M., Ode A., Fry G. Key visual concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res. 2006, 31:229-255.
44. Uuemaa E., Mander U., Riho Marja R. Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: a review. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 28:100-106.
45. Vizzari M. Spatial modelling of potential landscape quality. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31:108-111.
46. Wolf K.L. Assessing public response to freeway roadsides. Urban Forestry and context-sensitive solutions. J. Transp. Res. Board 2006, 1984:102-111.