Spatial modelling of landscape aesthetic potential in urban-rural fringes

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 181, Issue , 2016, Pages 623-636

  Sahraoui, Yohan ^a,b   Clauzel, Céline ^c   Foltête, Jean Christophe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ BOURGOGNE FRANCHE COMTÉ   (France)

^b Université Bourgogne Franche Comté   (France)

^c Paris Diderot University   (France)

Author keywords

Judgment consensus; Landscape aesthetics; Landscape metrics; Photo survey; Visibility analysis

Indexed keywords

LAND USE; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION;

AESTHETIC JUDGMENTS; JUDGMENT CONSENSUS; LAND USE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE ATTRIBUTES; LANDSCAPE ESTHETIC; LANDSCAPE METRIC; PHOTO SURVEY; SPATIAL MODELLING; URBAN-RURAL FRINGES; VISIBILITY ANALYSIS;

VISIBILITY;

ESTHETICS; LAND USE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE; NUMERICAL MODEL; PHOTOGRAPH; SPATIAL DATA; URBAN-RURAL MIGRATION;

CONSENSUS; DECISION MAKING; EXPLANATORY VARIABLE; HUMAN; LANDSCAPE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MODEL; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PHOTOGRAPHY; VISIBILITY; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CITY PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; FRANCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RURAL POPULATION; SOCIOECONOMICS; SPACE FLIGHT; URBAN POPULATION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CITY PLANNING; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; FRANCE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RURAL POPULATION; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SPACE SIMULATION; URBAN POPULATION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84979642085     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.031     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Appleton, J., The Experience of Landscape. 1975, John Wiley, London.
2. Arriaza, M., Cañas, J.F., Cañas, J.A., Ruiz, P., González, J., Barea, F., Landscape assessment via regression analysis. XIth Congress of the EAAE (European Association of Agricultural Economists), 2005, 7.
3. Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J.F., Cañas-Madueño, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P., Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69 (2004), 115–125, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029.
4. Barroso, F.L., Pinto-Correia, T., Ramos, I.L., Surová, D., Menezes, H., Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104 (2012), 329–342, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.005.
5. Bell, S., Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54 (2001), 201–211, 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00136-0.
6. Berto, R., Massaccesi, S., Pasini, M., Do eye movements measured across high and low fascination photographs differ? addressing Kaplan's fascination hypothesis. J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (2008), 185–191, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.004.
7. Bishop, I.D., Testing perceived landscape colour difference using the internet. Landsc. Urban Plan. 37 (1997), 187–196, 10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80003-5.
8. Bishop, I.D., Hulse, W., Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 30 (1994), 59–70.
9. Bourassa, S.C., The Aesthetics of Landscape. 1991, John Wiley, London.
10. Brown, L., A review of progress in soundscapes and an approach to soundscape planning. Int. J. Acoust. Vib. 17 (2012), 73–81.
11. Brown, T., Daniel, T., Landscape aesthetics of riparian environments: relationship of flow quantity to scenic quality along a wild and scenic river. Water Resour. Res. 27 (1991), 1787–1795.
12. Buhyoff, G.J., Leuschner, W.A., Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. For. Sci. 24 (1978), 424–432.
13. Campbell, D., Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J. Agric. Econ. 58 (2007), 467–483, 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00117.x.
14. Cañas, I., Ayuga, E., Ayuga, F., Canas, I., A contribution to the assessment of scenic quality of landscapes based on preferences expressed by the public. Land Use Policy 26 (2009), 1173–1181, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.02.007 ER.
15. Carles, J.L., Barrio, I.L., De Lucio, J.V., Sound influence on landscape values. Landsc. Urban Plan. 43 (1999), 191–200, 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00112-1.
16. Carlson, A., Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: seeing and knowing. Sheppard, S.R.J., Harshaw, H.W., (eds.) Forests and Landscapes – Linking Ecology, 2001, Sustainability and Aesthetic, Wallingford, 31–41.
17. Carvalho-Ribeiro, S.M., Lovett, A., Is an attractive forest also considered well managed? Public preferences for forest cover and stand structure across a rural/urban gradient in northern Portugal. For. Policy Econ. 13 (2011), 46–54, 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.09.003.
18. Cavailhès, J., Brossard, T., Foltête, J.C., Hilal, M., Joly, D., Tourneux, F.P., Tritz, C., Wavresky, P., GIS-based hedonic pricing of landscape. Environ. Resour. Econ. 44 (2009), 571–590, 10.1007/s10640-009-9302-8.
19. Coeterier, J.F., Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 34 (1996), 27–44, 10.1016/0169-2046(95)00204-9.
20. Coeterier, J.F., A photo validity test. J. Environ. Manag. 3 (1983), 315–323.
21. Concil of Europe, European Landscape Convention and Explanatory Report., 2000.
22. Cottet, M., Piégay, H., Bornette, G., Does human perception of wetland aesthetics and healthiness relate to ecological functioning?. J. Environ. Manag. 128 (2013), 1012–1022, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.06.056.
23. Daniel, T.C., Whither scenic beauty? visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54 (2001), 267–281, 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4.
24. Daniel, T.C., Boster, R.S., Measuring Landscape Esthetics: the Scenic Beauty Estimation Method. 1976, USDA Forest Service.
25. Daniel, T.C., Vining, J., Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. Altman, E., Wohlwill, J.F., (eds.) Behavior and the Natural Environment, 1983, Plenium Press, New-York, 39–84.
26. Daniels, T., When City and Country Collide. Managing Growth In The Metropolitan Fringe. 1998, Island Press, Washington DC.
27. de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex 7 (2010), 260–272, 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
28. 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. 77 (2006), 393–407, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.003.
29. Devine-Wright, P., Batel, S., Explaining public preferences for high voltage pylon designs: an empirical study of perceived fit in a rural landscape. Land Use Policy 31 (2013), 640–649, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.011.
30. Domingo-Santos, J.M., de Villarán, R.F., Rapp-Arrarás, I., de Provens, E.C.P., The visual exposure in forest and rural landscapes: an algorithm and a GIS tool. Landsc. Urban Plan. 101 (2011), 52–58, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.018.
31. 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. 78 (2006), 465–474, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006.
32. Dupont, L., Antrop, M., Van Eetvelde, V., Eye-tracking analysis in landscape perception research: influence of photograph properties and landscape characteristics. Landsc. Res. 39 (2014), 417–432.
33. Ellis, C.D., Lee, S.-W., Kweon, B.-S., Retail land use, neighborhood satisfaction and the urban forest: an investigation into the moderating and mediating effects of trees and shrubs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 74 (2006), 70–78, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.004.
34. European Environment Agency, Urban sprawl in Europe – the ignored challenge. 2006.
35. Faggi, A., Breuste, J., Madanes, N., Gropper, C., Perelman, P., Water as an appreciated feature in the landscape: a comparison of residents’ and visitors’ preferences in Buenos Aires. J. Clean. Prod., 2011, 1–6, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.009.
36. Fisher, P.F., Extending the applicability of viewsheds in landscape planning. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 62 (1996), 1297–1302.
37. Franke, R., Smooth interpolation of scattered data by local thin plate splines. Comput. Math. Appl. 8 (1982), 273–281, 10.1016/0898-1221(82)90009-8.
38. Friedberger, M., The rural-urban fringe in the late twentieth century. Agric. Hist. 74 (2000), 502–514.
39. Fromm, E., The Heart of Man. 1964, Harper, New-York.
40. Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Ode, Å., Velarde, M.D., The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecol. Indic. 9 (2009), 933–947, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.11.008.
41. Gallent, N., Shoard, M., Andersson, J., Oades, R., Tudor, C., Planning, inspiring England's urban fringes: multi-functionality and planning. Local Environ. Int. J. Justice Sustain 9 (2004), 217–233.
42. 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. 53 (2001), 71–83, 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00141-9.
43. Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G.W., Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environ. Behav. 23 (1991), 3–26.
44. Hagerhall, C.M., Consensus in landscape preference judgements. J. Environ. Psychol. 21 (2001), 83–92, 10.1006/jevp.2000.0186.
45. Hietala-Koivu, R., Agricultural landscape change: a case study in Yläne, southwest Finland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 46 (1999), 103–108.
46. Howley, P., Donoghue, C.O., Hynes, S., Landscape and Urban Planning Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104 (2012), 66–74, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.006.
47. Hur, M., Nasar, J.L., Chun, B., Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. J. Environ. Psychol. 30 (2010), 52–59, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.005.
48. Ives, C.D., Kendal, D., Values and attitudes of the urban public towards peri-urban agricultural land. Land Use Policy 34 (2013), 80–90, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.02.003.
49. Joly, D., Brossard, T., Cavailhès, J., A quantitative approach to the visual evaluation of landscape Daniel. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 99 (2009), 292–308.
50. Kalivoda, O., Vojar, J., Skřivanová, Z., Zahradník, D., Consensus in landscape preference judgments: the effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents’ characteristics. J. Environ. Manag. 137 (2014), 36–44, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.009.
51. Kaltenborn, B.P., Bjerke, T., Association between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59 (2002), 1–11, 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2.
52. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., The Experience of Nature. 1989, A Psychological Perspective, Cambridge.
53. Karjalainen, E., Tyrva, L., Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 59 (2002), 13–28.
54. Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., The Biophilia Hypothesis. 1993, Island Press, Washington DC.
55. Koczkodaj, W.W., Herman, M.H., Orlowski, M., Managing null entries in pairwise comparisons. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 1 (1999), 119–125.
56. Kvale, S., InterViews: an Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. 1996, SAGE Publications.
57. Kweon, B.-S., Ellis, C.D., Leiva, P.I., Rogers, G.O., Landscape components, land use, and neighborhood satisfaction. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 37 (2010), 500–517, 10.1068/b35059.
58. Lee, S.-W., Ellis, C.D., Kweon, B.-S., Hong, S.-K., Relationship between landscape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 85 (2008), 60–70, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.013.
59. Lindemann-Matthies, P., Junge, X., Matthies, D., The influence of plant diversity on people's perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol. Conserv. 143 (2010), 195–202, 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.003.
60. Llobera, M., Extending GIS-based visual analysis: the concept of visualscapes. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 17 (2003), 37–41, 10.1080/713811741.
61. 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. 44 (1999), 177–198, 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5.
62. Mahan, B.L., Polasky, S., Adams, R.M., Valuing urban wetlands: a property price approach. Land Econ. 76 (2000), 100–113, 10.2307/3147260.
63. Matsuoka, R., Kaplan, R., People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 84 (2008), 7–19, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009.
64. McGarigal, K., Marks, B.J., FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. 1995.
65. Medley, K.E., McDonnell, M.J., Pickett, S.T.A., Forest-landscape structure along an urban-to-rural gradient. Prof. Geogr. 47 (1995), 159–168.
66. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: General Synthesis. 2003, Island Press, Washington.
67. Miller, D., A method for estimating changes in the visibility of land cover. Landsc. Urban Plan. 54 (2001), 91–104.
68. Mitas, L., Mitasova, H., General variational approach to the interpolation problem. Comput. Math. Appl. 16 (1988), 983–992, 10.1016/0898-1221(88)90255-6.
69. Natori, Y., Chenoweth, R., Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists. J. Environ. Psychol. 28 (2008), 250–267, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.002.
70. Norton, B., Costanza, R., Bishop, R.C., The evolution of preferences Why “ sovereign ” preferences may not lead to sustainable policies and what to do about it. Ecol. Econ. 24 (1998), 193–211.
71. O ’neill, R.V., Krummel, J.R., Gardner, R.H., Sugihara, G., Jackson, B., Deangelis, D.L., Milne, B.T., Turner, M.G., Zygmunt, B., Christensen, S.W., Dale, V.H., Graham, R.L., Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc. Ecol. 1 (1988), 153–162, 10.1007/BF00162741.
72. Oldoni, D., De Coensel, B., Bockstael, A., Boes, M., De Baets, B., Botteldooren, D., The acoustic summary as a tool for representing urban sound environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 144 (2015), 34–48, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.08.013.
73. Otero Pastor, I., Casermeiro Martínez, M. a, Ezquerra Canalejoa, A., Esparcia Mariño, P., Landscape evaluation: comparison of evaluation methods in a region of Spain. J. Environ. Manag. 85 (2007), 204–214, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.09.018.
74. Palmer, J.F., Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 69 (2004), 201–218, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.010.
75. Parsons, R., The potential influences of environmental perception on human health. J. Environ. Psychol. 11 (1991), 1–23, 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80002-7.
76. Pinker, S., Visual Cognition: Computational Models of Cognition and Perception. 1986, MIT Press, Cambridge.
77. Reips, D., Standards for internet-based experimenting. Exp. Psychol. 49 (2002), 243–256.
78. Rogge, E., Nevens, F., Gulinck, H., Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 82 (2007), 159–174, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006.
79. Roth, M., Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment-An empirical study from Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78 (2006), 179–192, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.07.005.
80. Saaty, T.L., How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 48 (1990), 9–26, 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.
81. Saaty, T.L., A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15 (1977), 234–281, 10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5.
82. Sang, N., Ode, Miller, D., Landscape metrics and visual topology in the analysis of landscape preference. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 35 (2008), 504–520, 10.1068/b33049.
83. Schirpke, U., Tasser, E., Tappeiner, U., Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 111 (2013), 1–12, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.010.
84. Scott, A.J., Carter, C., Reed, M.R., Larkham, P., Adams, D., Morton, N., Waters, R., Collier, D., Crean, C., Curzon, R., Forster, R., Gibbs, P., Grayson, N., Hardman, M., Hearle, A., Jarvis, D., Kennet, M., Leach, K., Middleton, M., Schiessel, N., Stonyer, B., Coles, R., Disintegrated development at the rural–urban fringe: Re-connecting spatial planning theory and practice. Prog. Plann. 83 (2013), 1–52, 10.1016/j.progress.2012.09.001.
85. Sevenant, M., Antrop, M., Landscape representation validity: a comparison between on-site observations and photographs with different angles of view. Landsc. Res. 36 (2011), 363–385, 10.1080/01426397.2011.564858.
86. Sevenant, M., Antrop, M., The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference. Land Use Policy 27 (2010), 827–842, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.11.002.
87. Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W., The Mathematical Theory of Communication. 1971, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
88. Stamps, a. E., Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: a meta-analysis. J. Plan. Lit. 14 (1999), 155–175, 10.1177/08854129922092630.
89. Stumse, E., Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 16 (1996), 17–31.
90. Sullivan, W.C., Lovell, S.T., Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural-urban fringe. Landsc. Urban Plan. 77 (2006), 152–166, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.01.008.
91. Tahvanainen, L., Tyrväinen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., Kolehmainen, O., Forest management and public perceptions - visual versus verbal information. Landsc. Urban Plan. 53 (2001), 53–70.
92. Tress, B., Tress, G., Décamps, H., d'Hauteserre, A.-M., Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 57 (2001), 137–141, 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00199-2.
93. Tuan, Y.-F., Topophilia: a Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values. 1974.
94. Tveit, M.S., Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (2009), 2882–2888, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021.
95. Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J., Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 79 (2007), 5–19, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.003.
96. Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Kolehmainen, O., Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green 1 (2003), 135–149, 10.1078/1618-8667-00014.
97. Ulrich, R.S., Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landsc. Res. 4 (1979), 17–23.
98. Van den Berg, A.E., Jorgensen, A., Wilson, E.R., Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: does setting type make a difference?. Landsc. Urban Plan. 127 (2014), 173–181, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.012.
99. Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S.L., New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78 (2006), 362–372, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006.
100. 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. J. Environ. Psychol. 18 (1998), 141–157.
101. van Zanten, B.T., Verburg, P.H., Koetse, M.J., van Beukering, P.J.H., Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: a meta-analysis of case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 132 (2014), 89–101, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.012.
102. Vizzari, M., Spatial modelling of potential landscape quality. Appl. Geogr. 31 (2011), 108–118, 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.03.001.
103. Vouligny, É., Domon, G., Ruiz, J., An assessment of ordinary landscapes by an expert and by its residents: landscape values in areas of intensive agricultural use. Land Use Policy 26 (2009), 890–900, 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.10.016.
104. Wherrett, J.R., Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landsc. Res. 25 (2000), 79–96.
105. Wherrett, J.R., Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research. Landsc. Urban Plan. 45 (1999), 209–217.
106. White, E.M., Leefers, L.A., Influence of natural amenities on residential property values in a rural setting. Soc. Nat. Resour. 20 (2007), 659–667, 10.1080/08941920601171998.
107. Wilson, E.O., Biophilia. 1984, Harvard Un.
108. Yager, R., Multiple objective decision-making using fuzzy sets. Int. J. Man. Mach. Stud. 9 (1977), 375–382, 10.1016/S0020-7373(77)80008-4.
109. Youssoufi, S., Foltête, J.-C., Determining appropriate neighborhood shapes and sizes for modeling landscape satisfaction. Landsc. Urban Plan. 110 (2013), 12–24, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.005.