Imagery in Landscape Collection of Research Paper

Imagery in Landscape
Gate Work
GARIMA DUBEY
School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi
1
Contents
A view of the city: The urban Landscape and its Architectural imagery in the
Ashburnham Pentateuch .............................................................................................. 4
KIMBERLY TUTTLE .................................................................................................... 4
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. 4
Refrences ................................................................................................................ 4
Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic beauty estimation method ............... 7
Terry C. Daniel, Ron S. Boster .................................................................................... 7
Abstract .................................................................................................................. 7
References .............................................................................................................. 7
LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION: RESEARCH, APPLICATION AND THEORY ............... 10
ERVIN H. ZUBE’ , JAMES L. SELL’ and JONATHAN G. TAYLOR’ .......................... 10
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 10
References ............................................................................................................ 10
Use of Tencent Street View Imagery for Visual Perception of Streets ................... 14
Liang Cheng, Sensen Chu, Wenwen Zong, Shuyi Li, JieWu and Manchun Li ........... 14
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 14
Refences ............................................................................................................... 14
Human Landscape Perception ................................................................................... 17
Eugenie van Heijgen.................................................................................................. 17
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 17
References ............................................................................................................ 17
Landscape Perception ................................................................................................ 19
Isil Cakci Kaymaz ...................................................................................................... 19
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 19
References ............................................................................................................ 20
Perception and Value of Nature in Urban Landscapes ............................................ 24
C. Priego, J.-H. Breuste & J. Rojas............................................................................ 24
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 24
References ............................................................................................................ 24
Perception of the landscape by Mongolian nomads ................................................ 27
IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

2
ALENA OBERFALZEROVÁ ...................................................................................... 27

Abstract ................................................................................................................ 27
References ............................................................................................................ 27
Urban-Historical Landscape Analysis on the Basis of Mental Perceptions Case
Study: Tajrish Neighborhood ..................................................................................... 29
Anoosheh Goharia, Homa Behbahanib, Ismael Salehic ............................................ 29
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 29
References ............................................................................................................ 29
Sustaining beauty. The performance of appearance ............................................... 31
Elizabeth K. Meyer..................................................................................................... 31
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 31
References ............................................................................................................ 31
The theory of affordances .......................................................................................... 33
James J. Gibson ........................................................................................................ 33
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 33
References ............................................................................................................ 33
Imagery, Ideals, and Social Values: The Interpretation and Documentation of
Cultural Landscapes ................................................................................................... 34
LINDA FLINT MCCLELLAND .................................................................................... 34
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 34
References ............................................................................................................ 34
A Review of Landscape Assessment Paradigms in Landscape Perception
Research ...................................................................................................................... 35
Salaudeen, A. B.1, Dung-Gwom, J. Y.2, Bayo David3 .............................................. 35
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 35
References ............................................................................................................ 35
Cultural Differences in Landscape Perception ......................................................... 37
Irina Matijosaitiene, Okyay Ucan, Armenui Minasyan ................................................ 37
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 37
References ............................................................................................................ 37
Visual perception of the rural landscape: a study case in Val di Chiana aretina,
Tuscany (Italy) ............................................................................................................. 38
Veronica Alampi Sottini, Iacopo Bernetti, Matteo Pecchi, Maria Cipollaro ................. 38
GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

3
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 38
References ............................................................................................................ 38

4
A view of the city: The urban Landscape and its Architectural

imagery in the Ashburnham Pentateuch
KIMBERLY TUTTLE
ABSTRACT
Of the surviving eighteen folios illustrating the Genesis and Exodus narratives in the late
antique manuscript, the Ashburnham Pentateuch (“AP”), all but a few pages are
dominated by elaborate cityscapes. Indeed, as a work of art, the city defines much of
the narrative space in the miniatures. It provides an immediate visual contact with the
Pentateuch stories through a combination of framing the Old Testament figures within
an urban perspective which displays both interior and exterior city views. This imagery
of the city is arguably one of the most perplexing features of the AP. It does not reflect
the pictorial conventions of cities in the art of this period, nor does it accurately
represent the wilderness setting of the biblical text.
This research proposes that the distinct cityscapes in the manuscript represent what
architectural historian William MacDonald calls the “urban armatures” of imperial Roman
cities. These armatures (thoroughfares, passageways, and civic buildings) are the
essential architectural components of imperial urbanism. Transferred onto parchment,
the architecture not only guides the viewer’s navigation of the AP illustrations, it also
highlights the “dominant images and functional associations” of the signs and spaces of
the imperial Roman city. I argue that this juxtaposition between the Old Testament
imagery and the material form and look of a city familiar to a contemporary Roman
viewer constitutes a pictorial argument for a new Christian Roman culture in the
manuscript. My interpretation positions the AP as part of an exegetical strategy, which
sought to link the biblical past with the imperial legacy of Rome. In this sense, the AP
was an ecclesiastical tool used by Roman popes to assert the Church of Rome as the
Universal Christian church, and for Church fathers to reconcile the non-Christian,
Roman pagan past with Christian Rome in late antiquity. This is vividly illustrated in the
AP, where the past represented by the Old Testament is incorporated into the general
history of the Roman Empire through the presence of the imperial cityscapes. The
resulting effect is a powerful visual expression of Rome’s ordained role as the inheritor
of the Christian tradition.
Refrences
Anlezark, Daniel. “An Ideal Marriage: Abraham and Sarah in Old English Literature.”
Medium Aevum Vol. 69.2 (2000): 187-210.
Arendt, Hannah. “What Was Authority?.” In Authority, edited by Carl J. Friedrich, 81-
112. Cambridge: Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1958.

5
Brogiolo, G.P. “Ideas of the Town in Italy During the Transition from Antiquity to the
Middle Ages.” In The Idea and Ideal of the Town Between Late Antiquity and the Early
Middle Ages, edited by G.P. Brogiolo and Bryan Ward-Perkins, 99-125.
Leiden, Netherlands, E.J. Brill, 1999.
Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000.
Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. The World of Late Antiquity from Marcus
Aurelius to Muhammad. London: Thames and Hudson, 1971.
Bowerstock, G.W., Peter Brown and Oleg Grabar. Introduction to Late Antiquity: A
Guide to the Postclassical World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1999.
Boyer, Christine M. The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and
Architectural Entertainments. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1996.
Carroll, Robert P. “City of Chaos, City of Stone, City of Flesh: Urbanscapes in Prophetic
Discourse.” In ‘Every City shall be Forsaken’: Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel
and the Near East, edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak, 45-61. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Cooper, Kate. The Virgin and the Bride: Idealized Womanhood in Late Antiquity.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1996
Dalle Vacche, Angela. The Visual Turn: Classical Film Theory and Art History. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2003.
De Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1984.
Dougherty, James. The Fivesquare City: The City in the Religious Imagination. Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980.
Ellingsen, Mark. The Richness of Augustine: His Contextual and Pastoral Theology.
Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Frugoni, Chiara. A Distant City: Images of Urban Experience in the Medieval World.
Translated by William McCuaig. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Grabar, Oleg. The Mediation of Ornament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Gubser, Mike. Time’s Visible Surface: Alois Riegl and the Discourse on History and
Temporality in the Fin-de-Siècle Vienna. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2006.
Kessler, Herbert and Kurt Weitzmann. The Cotton Genesis: British Library, Codex
Cotton Otho B VI. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Krautheimer, Richard. Rome: Profile of a City, 312-1308. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1980.

6
Kesich, Veselin. “Peter’s Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition.” In the
Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, edited by John
Meyendorff, 35-66. Crestwood, N.Y. : St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992. Latin
Vulgate Bible. http://www.latinvulgate.com.
Letellier, Robert Ignatius. Day in Mamre: Night in Sodom: Abraham and Lot in Genesis
18 and 19. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J Brill, 1995.
Lowden, John. “The Beginnings of Biblical Illustrations.” In Imaging the Early Medieval
Bible, edited by John Williams, 9-59. Pennsylvania: University Park, 1999.
MacDonald, William. L. The Architecture of the Roman Empire II: An Urban Appraisal.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Mommsen, Theodor E. “St. Augustine and the Christian Idea of Progress: The
Background of The City of God.” In the City of God: A Collection of Critical Essays,
edited by Dorothy F. Donnelly, 353-372. New York: Peter Lang
St. Augustine. The City of God against the Pagans. Edited and translated by R.W.
Dyson. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998. “The Good Marriage.” In St.
Augustine on Marriage and Sexuality, edited by Elizabeth Clark. Washington, D.C.: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1996.
Verkerk, Dorothy Hoogland. “Biblical Manuscripts in Rome 400-700 and the
Ashburnham Pentateuch.” In Imaging the Early Medieval Bible, edited by John Williams,
97-120. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999. Early Medieval Bible
Illumination and the Ashburnham Pentateuch. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2004. “Exodus and Easter Vigil in the Ashburnham
Pentateuch.” Art Bulletin 77.1 (March 1995): 94-105. “Moral Structure in the
Ashburnham Pentateuch.” In Image and Belief, edited by Colum Hourihane, 71-88.
Princeton: Index of Christian Art, 1999.
Van Oort, Johannes. Jerusalem and Babylon: A Study into Augustine’s City of God and
the Sources of His Doctrine on the Two Cities. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991.
Ward-Perkins, Bryan. From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages: Public Building in
Northern and Central Italy, AD 300-850. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
Warland, Rainer. “The Concept of Rome in Late Antiquity reflected in the Mosaics of the
Triumphal Arch of S. Maria Maggiore in Rome.” In Rome AD 300-800: Power and
Symbol - Image and Reality, edited by J. Rasmus Brandt et al, 127- 141. Rome: Bardi
Editore, 2003

7
Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic beauty

estimation method
Terry C. Daniel, Ron S. Boster
Abstract
The problem of measuring scenic beauty has only recently become a major concern.
The proliferation of techniques has been particularly dramatic during the past five years,
no doubt reflecting a felt need by public land managers for a more substantive way to
evaluate the scenic resource. One general criticism is that many techniques have been
developed without adequate consideration of scientific criteria traditionally associated
with measurement systems. Objective measurement would place scenic beauty, as a
resource, on a more equal footing with other more tangible resources, and would also
provide better justification for land use decisions. Also, the client-designer relationship
between the public and landscape designers could be restored and improved.
The SBE Method measures public “perceptual preference” for various landscapes
through a carefully defined system of rating color slides representative of these
landscapes. It is based on the contention that scenic beauty judgments result from the
interaction of observer perception and observer standards.
The SBE Method has evolved through numerous tests and applications. During
development, particular attention was paid to commonly accepted criteria applicable to
any measurement system. Results of application tests indicate that the method meets
the criteria very well. The SBE index is a reliable and valid measure of perceived scenic
beauty, and is applicable to a wide range of forest management problems. The utility of
the SBE Method is illustrated by the analysis of the reactions of user, interest, and
professional groups. Differences and similarities in esthetic preference among the
groups were apparent. Importantly, the relative strengths of their esthetic preferences
were also revealed by the SBE measure. Further, differences in SBEs are indicative of
true differences in the perceived scenic beauty of the landscapes, independent of
differences in observers’ standards.
References
Amidon, Elliot, and Gary H. Eisner. 1968. Delineating landscape view areas. USDA For.
Ser. Res. Note PSW180, 5 p. Pacific Southwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley,
Cal.
Angus, R. C., and T. C. Daniel. 1974. Applying theory of signal detection in marketing
product developmentand evaluation. Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 56(3):573-577.
Arthur, Louise M., and Ron S. Boster. 1976. Measuring scenic beauty: A selected
annotated bibliography. USDAFor. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-25, Rocky Mt. For. and

8
Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo. Bock, R. Darrell, and Lyle V. Jones. 1968. The
measurement and prediction of judgement and choice. 370 p. Holden-Day, San
Francisco.
Boster, Ron S. [in press] Methodologies for scenic assessment. In: Proc. of a
Conference/ Workshop: Visual Quality and the Coastal Zone, Harper, David and John
Warbach (Eds), College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of
New York, Syracuse.
Boster, Ron S., and Terry C. Daniel. 1972. Measuring public responses to vegetative
management. In: Proc. 16 Ann. Arizona Watershed Symp., Arizona Water Commission,
Phoenix, p. 38-43.
Coughlin, Robert E., and Karen Goldstein. 1970. The extent of agreement among
observers on environmental attractiveness. Reg. Sci. Res. Inst. Discussion Pap. 37, 37
p. Regional Sci. Res. Inst., Philadelphia, PA.
Daniel, Terry C., Lawrence Wheeler, Ron Boster, and Paul Best. 1973. Quantitative
evaluation of landscapes: an application of signal detection analysis to forest
management alternatives. Man-Environment Systems 3(5):330-344.
Egan, J. P. 1958. Recognition memory and the operating characteristic. Technical Note
AFCRC-TN-58-51, 31 p. Hearing Communication Laboratory, Indiana University.
Fabos, J. G.1971. An analysis of environmental quality ranking systems in recreation.

In: Recreation Symp. Proc., p. 40-55. Northeastern For. Exp. Stn., USDA For. Serv.,
Upper Darby, PA. Green, David M., and John A. Swetts. 1966. Signal detection theory
and psychophysics, 455 p. John Wiley, New York.
Hake, H. W., and A. S. Rodwan. 1966. Perception and recognition. In: Experimental
Methods and Instrumentation in Psychology. p. 331-381, J. Sidowski (Ed), McGrawHill
Book Co., New York.
Hays, William L. 1963. Statistics. 719 p. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Hays, William L.1969. Quantification in Psychology. 87 p. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.,
Delmont, Cal. Lee, W. 1969. Relationships between Thurstone category scaling and
signal detection theory. Psychol. Bull. 71:101-107.
Leopold, Luna B. 1969. Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic factors among

rivers. Geol. Survey Circ. 630:1-16. USD1 Geol. Surv., Wash., DC.
Litton, R. Burton, Jr. 1968. Forest landscape description and inventories—a basis for
land planning and design. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PSW.49. 64 p. Pacific Southwest
For. and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Cal.

9
Litton, R. Burton, Jr. 1974. Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. J. For. 72(7):392-
397.
Pearson, Henry A., and Donald A. Jameson. 1967. Relationship between timber and
cattle production on ponderosa pine range: The Wild Bill Range. U.S. Dep. Agric., For.
Serv., Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, Colo., unnumbered publ., 10 p.
Potter, Dale R., and J. Alan Wagar. 1971. Techniques for inventorying manmade impact
in roadway environments. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-121, 12 p. Pacific
Northwest For. and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Ore.

10
LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION: RESEARCH, APPLICATION AND

THEORY
ERVIN H. ZUBE’ , JAMES L. SELL’ and JONATHAN G. TAYLOR’
Abstract
Landscape perception research during the past two decades has responded to
legislative mandates and landscape management, planning and design issues in a
number of countries. It has also engaged the interests of individuals from a variety of
disciplines and professions. This paper presents an analysis of the paradigms that have
been followed in assessing perceived landscape values, and identifies the theoretical or
conceptual bases which underlie these approaches. Four paradigms are identified from
review of over 160 articles published in 20 journals during the period 1965-1980.
Publications in each paradigm (expert, psychophysical, cognitive and experiential) are
reviewed with reference to contributions to pragmatic landscape planning and
management issues and to the evolution of a general theory of landscape perception.
Trends in publications within the paradigms are indicated over time and by professional-
disciplinary orientation. Overall, the absence of an explicit theoretical foundation is
noted. Arguments in support of the development of a theoretical framework for
landscape perception research are advanced and a proposed framework based on an
interactive perception process is presented.
References
Acking, C.A. and Sorte, G.J.,
1973. How do we verbalize what we see? Landscape Arch., 63: 120-125.
A&en, S.R., 1976. Towards landscape sensibility. Landscape, 20: 20-28.
Appleton, J., 1975a. The Experience of Landscape. John Wiley, New York, NY, 293 pp.
Appleton, J., 1975. Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Trans. Inst. Br.
Geogr., 66: 120-123.
Appleton, J. (Editor), 1979. The Aesthetics of Landscape. Rural Plann. Serv. Oxford,
Publ. No. 7,S5 pp.
Arthur, L.M., 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical
tests. For. Sci., 23: 151-160.
Arthur, L.M. and Baster, R.S., 1976. Measuring scenic beauty: a selected annotated
bibliography.U.S. For. Serv., Rocky Mountain For. Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO,34
PP.

11
Arthur, L-M., Daniel, T.C. and Baster, R.S., 1977. Scenic assessment: an overview.
Landscape Plan., 4: l.O9-129.
Banerjee, T., 1977. Who values what? Audience reaction to coastal scenery.
Landscape Arch., 67: 240-243.
Beckett, P.H.T., 1974. The interaction between knowledge and aesthetic appreciation.
Landscape Res, News, l(8): 5-7.
Berylne, D.E., 1960. Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. McGrawHil1, New York, NY, 350
pp.
Berylne, D.E., 1971. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton-Century--Crofts, New
York, NY, 336 pp.
Blacksell, M. and Gilg, A.W., 1975. Landscape evaluation in practice - the case of
Southeast Devon. Inst. Br. Geogr., Trans,, 66: 135-140
Brancher, D-M., 1969. Critique of ED. Fines: Landscape evaluation. A research project
in East Sussex. Reg. Stud., 3: 91-92.
Brancher, D.M., 1972. The minor road in Devon - a study of visitor’s attitudes. Reg.
Stud., 6: 49-68.
Briggs, D.J. and France, J., 1980. Landscape evaluation: a comparative study. J.
Environ. Manage., 10: 263-275.
Brush, R.O., 1979. The attractiveness of woodlands: Perceptions of forest landowners
in Massachusetts, For. Sci., 25: 495-506.
Brush, R.G. and Shafer, E.L., Jr., 1975. Application of a landscape-preference model to
land management. In: E.H. Z&be, R.G. Brush and J.G. Fabos (Editors), Landscape
Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross,
Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 168-182.
Buhyoff, G.J., 2979, A methodological note on the reliability of observationiy gathered
time-spent data. J. Leisure Res., II: 334-342.
Buhyoff, G.J. and Leuschner, W.A., 1978. Estimating psychological disutility from
damaged forest stands. For. Sci., 26: 227-230.
Buhyoff, G.J., Leuschner, W.A. and Wellman, J.D., 1979. Aesthetic impacts of southern
pine beetle damage. J. Environ. Manage., 8: 261-267.
Buhyoff? G.& Leuschner, W.A. and Arndt, LX., 1980. Replication of a scenic preference
function. For. Sci., 26: 227-230.
Buhyoff, G-J- and Riesenman, M.F., 1979. Manipulation of dimension in landscape
preference judgements: a quantitative validation. Leisure Sci., 2: 221-238.

12
Buhyoff, G.J., Wellman, J.D., Harvey, H. and Fraser, R.A., 1978. Landscape architect’s
interpretations of people’s landscape preferences. J. Environ. Manage., 6: 255-262.
Buhyoff, G.J. and Wellman, J.D., 1980, The specification of a non-linear psychophysical
function for visual landscape dimensions. J. Leisure Res., 12: 257-272.
Burke, R.E., 1975, National Forest visual management: a blend of landscape and timber
management. J. For., 73: 767~-170.
Byrne, SM., 1979-1980. Perception of the landscape in the Lands’ End Peninsula.
Landscape Res., 5: 2.X-24.
C&in, J.S., Dearinger, J.A. and Curtin, ME, 1972. An attempt at assessing preferences
for natural landscape. Environ. Behavior, 4: 447-470.
Carls, E.G., 1974. The effects of people and man-induced conditions on preference for
outdoor recreation landscapes. J. Leisure Res., 6: ! 13-124.
Carls, E.G., 1979, Coastal recreation: aesthetics and ethics. Coastal Zone Manage., 5:
119-130.
Carlson, A.A., 1977. On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landscape Plann.,
4:131-172.
Carruth, D.B., 1977. Assessing scenic quality: transmission line siting. Landscape, 22:
31-34.
Cerny, J.W., 1972. Landscape amenity assessment bibliography. Council Plann.
Librarians, Exchange Bibliogr., Monticello, IL, 8 pp.
Chapman, V., 1974. Reactions to developments in the countryside in terms of
landscape change. Landscape Res. News, l(7): 4-7.
Clamp, P., 1975. A study in the evaluation of landscape and the impact of roads.
Landscape Res. News, l( 11): 6-7.
Clamp, P., 1976. Evaluating English landscapes - some recent developments. Environ.
Plann., Ser. A, 8: 79-92.
Clay, G., 1965. The woodland scene: time for another look. Landscape Architecture, 56:
28-29.
Clynes, M., 1969. Toward a theory of man: precision of essentic form in living
communications.

13
In: N. Leibovic and J.C. Eccles (Editors), Information Processing in the Nervous
System. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Coeterier, J.F. and Dijkstra, H., 1976. Research on the visual perception and
appreciation of and visual changes in a hedgerow landscape. Landscape Plann., 3:
451-452.
Cook, W.L., Jr., 1972. An evaluation of the aesthetic quality of forest trees. J. Leisure
Res., 4(4): 293-302.
Countryside Commission for Scotland, 1971. A Planning Classification of Scottish
Landscape Resources. Battleby, Redgorton, Perth, 83 pp.
Craik, K.H., 1975. Individual variations in landscape description. In E.H. Zube, R.O.
Brush and J.G. Fabos (Editors), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and
Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 130-150.
Crofts, R.S., 1975. The landscape component approach to landscape evaluation. Inst.
Br. Geogr., Trans., 66: 124-129.
Cros, S., Diebold, M.C. and Luginbohl, Y., 1980. Fostering public awareness of the
landscape during the preparation of a rural development plan for the Argonne region.
Landscape Plann., 7: 263-279.
Crystal, J.H. and Brush, R.O., 1978. Measuring scenic quality at the urban fringe.
Landscape Res., 3: 9-11, 14.
Daniel, T.C. and Boster, R.S., 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty
estimation method. U.S. D.A. For. Serv., Res. Pap. RM-167.
Daniel, T.C., Anderson, L.M., Schroeder, H.W. and Wheeler, L., III, 1978. Mapping the
scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Leisure Sci., 1: 35-52.
Dearden, P., 1980. A statistical method for the assessment of visual landscape quality
for land-use planning purposes. J. Environ. Manage., 10: 51-68.
Dearden, P., 1981. Public participation and scenic quality analysis. Landscape Plann., 8
3-19.
Dearden, P. and Rosenblood, L., 1980. Some observations on multi-variate techniques
in landscape evaluation. Reg. Stud., 14: 99-110.
Dewey, J. and Bentley, A.F., 1949. Knowing and the Known. Beacon, Boston, MA, 334
pp. Duffield, B.S. and Coppock, J.T., 1975. The delineation of recreational landscapes:
the role of a computer-based information system. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 66: 141-148.
Duncan, J.S., Jr., 1973. Landscape taste as a symbol of group identity: a Westchester
County village. Geogr. Rev., 63: 334-355.

14
Use of Tencent Street View Imagery for Visual Perception of

Streets
Liang Cheng, Sensen Chu, Wenwen Zong, Shuyi Li, JieWu and Manchun
Li
Abstract
The visual perception of streets plays an important role in urban planning, and
contributes to the quality of residents’ lives. However, evaluation of the visual perception
of streetscapes has been restricted by inadequate techniques and the availability of
data sources. The emergence of street view services (Google Street View, Tencent
Street View, etc.) has provided an enormous number of new images at street level, thus
shattering the restrictions imposed by the limited availability of data sources for
evaluating streetscapes. This study explored the possibility of analyzing the visual
perception of an urban street based on Tencent Street View images, and led to the
proposal of four indices for characterizing the visual perception of streets: salient region
saturation, visual entropy, a green view index, and a sky-openness index. We selected
the Jianye District of Nanjing City, China, as the study area, where Tencent Street View
is available. The results of this experiment indicated that the four indices proposed in
this work can effectively reflect the visual attributes of streets. Thus, the proposed
indices could facilitate the assessment of urban landscapes based on visual perception.
In summary, this study suggests a new type of data for landscape study, and provides a
technique for automatic information acquisition to determine the visual perception of
streets.
Refences
Strom, E. The Street: A quintessential social public space. J. Urban Technol. 2015, 22,
139–141. [CrossRef]
Ozkan, U.Y. Assessment of visual landscape quality using IKONOS imagery. Environ.
Monit. Assess. 2014, 186, 4067. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Clay, G.R.; Smidt, R.K. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used
in scenic highway analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 66, 239–255. [CrossRef]
Swimmer, E.; Whiteman, J.; Taintor, R. Byway Beginnings: Understanding,
Inventorying, and Evaluating a Byway's Intrinsic Qualities; National Scenic Byways
Program Publication: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
Antrop, M.; Stobbelaar, D.J.; Mansvelt, J.D.V. Background concepts for integrated
landscape analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 77, 17–28. [CrossRef]

15
Daniel, T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st
century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54, 267–281. [CrossRef]
Yin, L.; Cheng, Q.;Wang, Z.; Shao, Z. ‘Big data’ for pedestrian volume: Exploring the
use of Google StreetView images for pedestrian counts. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 63, 337–
345. [CrossRef]
Runge, N.; Samsonov, P.; Degraen, D.; Schoning, J. No more autobahn: Scenic route
generation using Googles
Street View. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User
Interfaces, Sonoma, CA, USA, 7–10 March 2016.
Kopf, J.; Chen, B.; Szeliski, R.; Cohen, M. Street Slide: Browsing Street Level Imagery.
In Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference and Exhibition on Computer
Graphics and Interactive Techniques,Los Angeles, CA, USA, 26–30 July 2010.
Hoelzl, I.; Marie, R. Google Street View: Navigating the operative image. Vis. Stud.
2014, 29, 261–271.[CrossRef]
Torii, A.; Havlena, M. From google street view to 3d city models. In Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Kyoto, Japan, 29 September–2
October 2009.
Anguelov, D.; Dulong, C.; Filip, D.; Frueh, C.; Lafon, S.; Lyon, R.; Ogale, A.; Vincent,
L.;Weaver, J. Google street view: Capturing the world at street level. Computer 2010,
43, 32–38. [CrossRef]
Verstockt, S.; Gerke, M.; Kerle, N. Geolocalization of Crowdsourced Images for 3-D
Modeling of City Points of Interest. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2015, 12, 1670–
1674. [CrossRef]
Hara, K.; Azenkot, S.; Campbell, M.; Bennett, C.L.; Le, V.; Pannella, S.; Moore, R.;
Minckler, K.; Ng, R.H.; Froehlich, J.E. Improving Public Transit Accessibility for Blind
Riders by Crowdsourcing Bus Stop Landmark Locations with Google Street View. In
Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and
Accessibility, Washington, DC, USA, 21–23 October 2013.
Olea, P.P.; Mateo-Tomás, P. Assessing species habitat using Google Street View: A
case study of cliff-nesting vultures. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e54582. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rousselet, J.; Imbert, C.; Dekri, A.; Garcia, J.; Goussard, F.; Vincent, B.; Denux, O.;
Robinet, C.; Dorkeld, F.; Roques, A.; et al. Assessing species distribution using Google
Street View: A pilot study with the pine processionary moth. PLoS ONE 2013, 8,
e74918. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Berland, A.; Lange, D.A. Lange Google Street View shows promise for virtual street tree
surveys. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 11–15. [CrossRef]

16
Vanwolleghem, G.; Dyck, D.V.; Ducheyne, F.; Bourdeaudhuij, I.D.; Cardon, G.

Assessing the environmental characteristics of cycling routes to school: A study on the
reliability and validity of a Google Street View-based audit. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2014,
13, 19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Li, X.; Zhang, C.; Li,W. Does the visibility of greenery increase perceived safety in urban
areas? Evidence from the place pulse 1.0 dataset. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2015, 4,
1166–1183. [CrossRef]
Clews, C.; Brajkovich-Payne, R.; Dwight, E.; Fauzul, A.A.; Burton, M.; Carleton, O.;
Cook, J.; Deroles, C.;Faulkner, R.; Furniss, M.; et al. Alcohol in urban streetscapes: A
comparison of the use of Google Street Viewand on-street observation. BMC Public
Health 2016, 16, 442. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Oh, K. Visual threshold carrying capacity (VTCC) in urban landscape management: A
case study of Seoul, Korea. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 39, 283–294. [CrossRef]
Li, X.; Zhang, C.; Li, W.; Ricard, R.; Meng, Q.; Zhang, W. Assessing street-level urban
greenery using Google Street View and a modified green view index. Urban For. Urban
Green. 2015, 14, 675–685. [CrossRef]
Lynch, K. The Image of the City; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960.
Stamps, A.E.; Smith, S. Environmental enclosure in urban settings. Environ. Behav.
2002, 34, 781–794.[CrossRef]
Yang, J.; Zhao, L.; Mcbride, J.; Gong, P. Can you see green? Assessing the visibility of
urban forests in cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 91, 97–104. [CrossRef]
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.
[CrossRef]
Zhang, L.; Gu, Z.; Li, H. Sdsp: A Novel Saliency Detection Method by Combining Simple
Priors. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing,
Melbourne, Australia, 15–18 September 2013.
Shen, X.; Wu, Y. A Unified Approach to Salient Object Detection via Low Rank Matrix
Recovery. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, Providence, RI, USA, 16–21 June 2012.
Judd, T.; Ehinger, K.; Durand, F.; Torralba, A. Learning to Predict Where Humans Look.
In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Kyoto, Japan,
29 September–2 October 2009.
Otsu, N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans. Syst.
Man Cybern. 1979, 9,62–66. [CrossRef]

17
Human Landscape Perception

Eugenie van Heijgen
Abstract
In this report the dimensions of human landscape perception are explained and clarified
in order to inform the AONB High Weald on understanding how people experience the
landscape.
First an introductory overview is given on European and English landscape perceptions
through time, with an additional explanation of global perceptions by highlighting some
diverse cultures. The aim here is to create awareness about the horizontal and vertical
changing perceptions about the landscape, stressing that people have experienced the
landscape differently over time and also might do that in the future. Differences in
landscape perception are exhibited, simply stating that how we look at the landscape is
different from other people, and even different from our ancestors. Furthermore, basic
concepts about landscape perception are explained. Much landscape research
focusses on the visual world, but we do have to keep in mind that a landscape is
perceived through all senses. The definition of perception can be derived from that:
perception is the process of experience organized and interpreted information extracted
from sensations. Because perception is influenced by feelings and opinions, it is
inherently subjective. Differences between lay men and expert perceptions are evident,
meaning that in policy we have to keep in mind who is making the valuation, even
though many policies nowadays focus only on the expert view. The Landscape
Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland 2002 and the Guidance for
assessing landscapes for designation as National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty in England have been critically reviewed, with the outcome that the documents
need improvement on the aspects of coherence, and academic based public preference
strategies. Some key points are derived from the report. Most policy documents claim to
be objective though they are certainly not. Also there seems to be a gap between
academic theories and applied policy strategies, in which policy is not updated to the
newer existing theories.
By creating a better understanding in landscape experience, further policies about
landscape perception can be well underwritten using this report, and can be used to
form a basic understanding of how to implement public perception into policy strategies.
References
Bell, S. (1996). Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape. London, E&FN Spon.
Bradley, D. Bradley, J. Coombes, M. Tranos, E. (2009). Sense of Place and Social
Capital and the Historic Built Environment. Newcastle: University of Newcastle,
International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies.

18
CABE (2010). People and places: Public attitudes to beauty. On behalf of the
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. Ipsos MORI
Cambridge dictionary (2013). Cambridge Dictionary Online
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/aesthetic?q=aesthetic accessed 8 May
2013
Oxford dictionary (2013a).
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/characteristic?q=characteristic accessed
8 May 2013
Oxford dictionary (2013b).
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/quality?q=quality accessed 8 May 2013
Oxford dictionary (2013c).
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/value?q=value accessed 8 May 2013
Dutch Dictionary (2013). Woorden Nederlandse Taal
http://www.woorden.org/woord/esthetisch
Accessed 8 May 2013
European Landscape Convention (2000). Text of the European Landscape Convention.
Council of Europe. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm consulted
on 24th of April, 2013.
Kleinginna, P. & Kleinginna, A. (1981). A categorised list of emotional definitions, with
suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5(4), 345-379. in
Jacobs, M.H. (2006). The production of mindscapes: a comprehensive theory of
landscape experience. Thesis, Wageningen.
Jacobs, M.H. (2006). The production of mindscapes: a comprehensive theory of
landscape experience. Thesis, Wageningen.
Searle, J. R. (1997). The mystery of consciousness. New York: The New York Review
of Books. In: Jacobs, M.H. (2006) The production of mindscapes: a comprehensive
theory of landscape experience. Thesis, Wageningen.
Selman, P. (2012). Sustainable Landscape Planning; the Reconnection Agenda.
Routledge

19
Landscape Perception
Isil Cakci Kaymaz
Abstract
“... landscape is composed of not only of what lies before our eyes but what lies within
our heads.”
D.W. Meinig (1979)
Landscape, as a term, has been subject to a wide range of disciplines, such as art,
history, geography, ecology, politics, planning and design. Although it has been
associated with mainly physical features of an environment, today the term landscape
refers to much more than just scenery. Landscape is a complex phenomenon which
evolves continuously through time and space. It is a reflection of both natural processes
and cultural changes throughout time. Landscapes can be a product of either only
natural processes (natural landscapes) or human intervention on natural ecosystems
(cultural landscapes). Nowadays, it is almost impossible to encounter with a natural
landscape in our daily lives. Most of the natural landscapes have been modified by
human activities. Hence, they are embedded with symbolic meanings of our societies’
cultural diversity and identity. On the other hand, the deterioration of natural ecosystems
has become an important issue in sustainable development, since we depend on
natural resources to survive. Thus, as natural and cultural heritages, landscapes need
to be protected and managed in the context of sustainability. In 2000, Council of Europe
adopted the European Landscape Convention (ELC) to promote sustainable planning,
protection and management of European landscapes. ELC defines landscape as:
“…an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and
interaction of natural and/or human factors”.
The definition of ELC puts an emphasis on the perceptual dimension of the landscape.
Since landscape involves a subjective experience, it encompasses a perceptive, artistic
and existential meaning (Antrop, 2005). Figure 1 shows the components of a landscape,
which hence influence perception of the landscape. There is a mutual relationship
between individual and the surrounding environment. People are intrinsically involved
with their living environments to survive. They use and shape the physical environment
to meet their physical and social needs. While environments are shaped by people,
people are inspired and shaped by their environments as well. Thus, perception of the
environment or the landscape has become an area of concern of various disciplines in
order to understand and explain this interaction between people and their physical
settings.

20
References
Antrop, M. (2005). From holistic landscape synthesis to transdisciplinary landscape
management. In: Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration,
Education and Application, B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, P. Opdam, pp.27-50,
Wageningen UR Frontis Series No. 12., Springer, Heidelberg.
Baluch, F. Itti, L. (2011). Mechanisms of top-down attention. Trends in Neurosciences,
Vol.34, No.4, pp.210-224, ISSN:0166-2236.
Barak-Erez, D. & Shapira, R. (1999). The Delusion of Symmetric Rights. Oxford Journal
of Legal Studies, Vol.19, No.2, pp.297-312, Online ISSN 1464-3820.
Bell, P.A., Greene, T.C., Fisher, J.D. & Baum, A. (2001). Environmental Psychology. 5th
Edition, Harcourt College Publishers, ISBN:0155080644, USA.
Berleant, A. (1992). The aesthetics of environment. Temple University Press, ISBN: 0-
87722-993- 7, USA.
Bishop, I.D. & Rohrmann, B. (2003). Subjective responses to simulated and real
environments: a comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.65, pp.261-277,
ISSN: 0169-2046.
Burassa, S.C. (1988). Toward a theory of landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban
Planning, Vol.15, pp.241-252, ISSN: 0169-2046.
Cain, R., Jennings, P. & Poxon, J. (2011). The development and application of the
emotional dimensions of landscape. Applied Acoustics, In press, doi:
10.1016/j.apacoust.2011.11.006
Carles, J.L., Barrio, I.L., & de Lucio, J.V. (1999) Sound influence on landscape values.
Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.43, pp.191-200, ISSN: 0169-2046.
Carson, E. (2002). Locke’s account of certain and instructive knowledge. British Journal
for the History of Philosophy, Vol.10, No.3, pp.359-378, Online ISSN: 1469-3526.
Chang, H. (2009). Mapping the Web of Landscape Aesthetics: A critical Study of
Theoretical Perspectives in Light of Environmental Sustainability. PhD Dissertation,
North
Carolina State University, Available from: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/3362
Daniel, T. C., (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in
the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 54, pp. 267-281, ISSN: 0169-
2046.
Daniel, T.C. Meitner, M.M. (2001). Representational validity of landscape visualizations:
The effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal

21
of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21, No.1, pp.61-72, ISSN: 0272-4944.

Downs, R. N. Stea, D. (1973). Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior: Process and
Products. In: Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior, Roger
M. Downs David Stea, pp. 8-26, Aldine, ISBN: 0202100588, Chicago.
Dunn, M.C. (1976). Landscape with photographs: testing the preference approach to
landscape evaluation. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 4, pp. 15-26.
Echelberger, H.E. (1979). The semantic differential in landscape research, Proceedings
of Our National Landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and
management of the visual resource, April 23-35, Nevada, pp.524-531.
Fisher, B.S. & Nasar, J.L. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features:
prospect, refuge and escape. Environment and Behavior, Vol.24, No.1, pp.35-65, ISSN:
0013-9165.
Forster, P.M. (2010). A brief introduction to environmental psychology. Date of access:
22/01/2012, Available from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45853873/Introduction-to-
Environmental-
Psychology Galanter, P. (2010). Complexity, Neuroaesthetics, and Computational
Aesthetic Evaluation, Proceedings of 13th Generative Art Conference GA2010, pp.400-
409, Italy.
Gibson, J.J. (1986). The theory of affordances. In: The ecological approach to visual
perception, J.J.Gibson, pp.127-143, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc,
ISBN:0898599598, USA.
Göregenli, M. (2010). Çevre psikolojisi: insan-mekan ilişkileri. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi
Yayınları, ISBN:978-605-399-171-7, Istanbul.
Jennings, P. & Cain, R. (2012). A framework for improving urban soundscapes. Applied
Acoustics, In press, doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2011.12.003
Kang, J. (2007).Urban Sound Environment. Talor & Francis, ISBN:0-415-35857-4,
Great Britain.
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1978). Humanscape: environments for people. Duxbury Press,
ISBN- 10: 0878721630, USA.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Ryan, R.L. (1998). With People in Mind. Island Press, ISBN: 1-
55963- 594-0, USA.
Lekagul, A. (2002). Toward preservation of the traditional marketplace: A preference
study of traditional and modern shopping environments in Bangkok, Thailand. PhD
Thesis submitted to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.

22
Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality

inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder. Landscape and Urban Planning,
Vol.44, No.4, pp.177-198, ISSN: 0169-2046.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of The City, The MIT Press, ISBN: 0-262-62001-4, USA.
Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment &
Behavior, Vol.15, No.4, pp.487-511, Online ISSN: 1552-390X.
Martindale, C. (1996). How can we measure a society’s creativity? In: Dimensions of
Creativity, M.A.Boden, pp.159-198, MIT Press, ISBN:0262522195, USA.
Nasar, J.L. (1988a). Visual preferences in urban street scenes: a cross-cultural
comparison between Japan and The United States. In: Environmental Aesthetics:
theory, research & applications, J.L.Nasar, pp.260-274, Cambridge University Press,
ISBN: 0521341248,
USA.
Nasar, J.L. (1988b). Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes. In:
Environmental Aesthetics: theory, research & applications, J.L.Nasar, pp. 275-289,
Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0521341248, USA.
Ode, Ǻ. Miller, D. (2011). Analysing the relationship between indicators of landscape
complexity and preference. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol.38,
pp.24-40.
Pacione, M. (2005). Urban geography: a global perspective. Routledge, 2nd Edition,
ISBN: 0-415- 34305-4, USA.
Sevenant M. Antrop M. (2011). Landscape Representation Validity:A Comparison
between On-site Observations and Photographs with Different Angles of View.
Landscape Research, Vol.36, No.3, pp.363-385, ISSN: 0142-6397.
Shuttleworth, S. (1980). The use of photographs as an environmental presentation
medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 11, pp.61-
76.
Solène, M. (2011). Assessment of urban soundscapes. Organised Sound, Vol.16, No.3,
pp.245- 255, EISSN: 1469-8153.
Stewart, T.R., Middleton, P., Downtown, M. Ely, D. (1984). Judgments of photographs
vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol.4,No.4, pp.283-302, ISSN: 0272-4944.
Swanwick, C. (2002). Landscape Character Assessment: A guidance for England and
Scotland. On behalf of The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, UK,
Available from: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/lcaguidance_tcm6-7460.pdf

23
Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A. Miles, M.A. & Zelson, M.
(1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, Vol.11, pp.211-230, ISSN: 0272-4944.
Ungar, S. (1999). Environmental perception, cognition and appraisal. Environmental
Psychology 4 Lecture Notes, Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland.
Vandenabeele, B. (2012). Burke and Kant on the Social Nature of Aesthetic Experience.
The Science of Sensibility: Reading Burke's Philosophical Enquiry, K.Vermeir & M.F.
Deckard, pp.177-192 , Springer, e-ISBN: 978-94-007-2102-9.
Van den Berg, A.E., Kooole, S.L.. van den Wulp, N.Y. (2003). Environmental
preference and restoration: how are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Vol. 23, pp. 135-146, ISSN: 0272-4944.
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In: A sourcebook of
Gestalt psychology, W.D. Ellis, pp.71-88, Reprinted by Routledge in 2001,
ISBN:0415209579,
Great Britain. Yang, B. & Brown, T. J. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison of
preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environment & Behavior,
Vol.24, pp.471-507, Online ISSN: 1552-390X.
Yang, B. & Kaplan, R. (1990). The perception of landscape style: a cross-cultural
comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.19, pp. 251-262, ISSN: 0169-2046.
Yang, W. & Kang, J. (2005). Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces.
Applied Acoustics, Vol.66, pp.211-229, ISSN: 0003-682X.
Yu, K. (1995). Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese
subgroups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.32, No.2,
pp. 107-126, ISSN: 0169-2046.
Yu, L. & Kang, J. (20101). Factors influencing the sound preference in urban open
spaces. Applied Acoustics, Vol.71, pp.622-633, ISSN: 0003-682X.
Zhang, M. & Kang, J. (2007). Towards the evaluation, description and creation of
soundscapes in urban open spaces. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design, Vol. 34, pp. 68-86, ISSN: 0265-8135.

24
Perception and Value of Nature in Urban Landscapes
C. Priego, J.-H. Breuste & J. Rojas
Abstract
Cities are not socially homogenous, but divided into socially and structurally
differentiated sub-units. Likewise, the individuals of a community, city or neighborhood
present specific behavioral pattern and uses with respect to their public green areas.
This premise has led us to explore the question of how the perceptions, uses, and
behaviors of people from different countries, cultures, and socioeconomic levels in
Chile, Germany and Spain differ or coincide as far as urban nature and landscapes are
concerned. Due to the comparative nature of the project, research areas with similar
characteristics were chosen, thus allowing a comparative analysis of upper and lower
middle-class neighborhoods. People from all six study areas were surveyed using the
same questionnaires. The results revealed that people of different social and cultural
backgrounds use and perceive urban landscape in different ways. We found that nature
of different kind plays an important role in all the urban societies and particularly in the
neighborhoods studied, regardless of social status or nationality. However, the higher
the social status, the greater the urban green area dedicated to private uses. The
preference for specific types of nature depends not only on social status, but cultural
elements, accessibility and tradition as well. Moreover, nature-related outdoor activities
are defined by this status, in turn reflecting the individual’s cultural status within society.
References
Abu-Ghazzeh, T.M., 1996. Reclaiming public space: the ecology of neighborhood open
spaces in the town of Abu-Nuseir, Jordan. Landscape and Urban Planing 36, 197-216.
Akbari, N.; S. Davis; S. Dorsano.; J. Huang; & S. Winnett 1992. Cooling our
communities: a guidebook on tree planting and light-coloured surfacing. USEPA ;
Washington, DC.
Al-Hathloul, S. & M. A. Mughal 1999. Creating identity in new communities: case studies
from Saudi Arabia. Landscape and Urban Planing 44, 199-218.
Anderson, L.-M. & H.-K. Cordell 1988. Influence of trees on residential property values
in Athens, Georgia (USA): A survey based on actual sales prices. Landscape and
Urban Planning 15, 153-164. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(88)90023-0
Austin, M.-E. 2004. Resident perspectives of the open space conservation subdivision
in Hamburg Township. Landscape and Urban Planning 69, 245-253. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.09.007

25
Balram, S. & S. Dragicevic 2005. Attitudes toward urban green spaces: integrating
questionnaire survey and collaborative GIS techniques to improve attitude
measurements. Landscape and Urban Planing 71, 147-162.
Beer, A.-R. 1994. Urban greenspace and sustainability. In: H. van der Vecht et al. (eds.):
Sustainable urban development: research and experiments. University Press, Delft, 69-88.
Breuste, J. & S. Wohlleber 1998. Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege in urbanen
Kulturlandschaften Leipzigs. Zeitschrift für den Erdkundeunterricht, 50 , 215-225.
Brunson, L.; F.-E. Kuo & W.-C. Sullivan 2001. Resident appropriation of defensible
space in urban public housing: Implications for safety and community.
Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and
Urban Planning 68, 129-138. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
Crow, T.; T. Brown & R. DeYoung 2006. The Riverside and Berwyn experience:
contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscape, and their effects
on people. Landscape and Urban Planing 75, 282-299.
Dökmeci, V. & L. Berköoz 2000. Residential-location preferences according to
demographic characteristics in Istanbul. Landscape and Urban Planing 48, 45-55.
Ellis, C.D; S. W. Lee & B. Kweon 2006. Retail land use, neighborhood satisfaction and
the urban forest: an investigation into the moderating and mediating effects of trees and
shrubs. Landscape and Urban Planing 74, 70-78.
Fjørtoft, I. & J. Sageie 2000. The natural environment as a playground for children:
landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban
Planing 48, 83-97.
Gobster, P.H. 1995. Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for
recreation. Landscape and Urban Planing 33, 401-413.
Gobster, P.H. 2001. Visions of nature: confl ict and compatibility in urban park
restoration. Landscape and Urban Planing 56, 35-51.
Hörnsten, L & P. Fredman 2000. On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden.
Landscape and Urban Planing 51, 1-10.
Jim, C.Y. & W. Y. Chen 2006. Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of
urban greenspaces in Guangzhou. China. Landscape and Urban Planing 75, 81-96.
Kaplan, R. 1993. Urban forestry and the workplace. In: Gobster, P. H (ed.): Managing
urban and high use recreation setting: Selected Papers from the Urban Forestry and
Ethnic Minorities and the Environment Paper Sessions, International Symposium on
Society and Natural Resources, 41-45. USDA Forest Service, St Paul.
Kaplan, R. & M. E. Austin 2004. Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature
nearby. Landscape and Urban Planing 69, 235-243.

26
Oku, H. & Fukamachi, K. 2006. The differences in scenic perception of forest visitors
through their attributes and recreational activity. Landscape and Urban Planing 75, 34-
42.
Owens, P.M. 1993.Neighborhood form and pedestrian life: taking a closer look.
Özgüuner, H., A. D. Kendle 2006. Public attitudes towards naturalistic versus designed
landscapes in the city of Sheffield (UK). Landscape and Urban Planing 74, 139-157.
Pacione, M. 1982. The use of objective and subjective measures of quality of life in
human geography. Progress in Human Geography 6, 495-514.
Peck, S.-W. & C. Callaghan 1999. Greenbacks from Green Roofs: Forging a New
Industry in Canada. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.
Rohde, C.-L. & A.-D. Kendle 1994. Report to English Nature - Human Well-being,
Natural Landscapes and Wildlife in Urban Areas: A Review. University of Reading,
Bath.
Roovers, P., M. Hermy & H. Gulinck, H. 2002. Visitor profile, perceptions and
expectations in forests from a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium.
Saleh, M.A.E. 1999. Reviving traditional design in modern Saudi Arabia for social
cohesion and crime prevention purposes. Landscape and Urban Planing 44, 43-62.
Santibáñez, F. & J.-M. Uribe 1993. Atlas Agroclimático de Chile. Regiones Sexta,
Séptima, Octava y Novena. Universidad de Chile, Ministerio de Agricultura, Fondo de
Investigación Agro-pecuaria. Corporación Nacional de Fomento; Santiago de Chile.
Sebba, R. 1991. The landscape of childhood: the reflection childhood’s environment in
adult memories and in children’s attitudes. Environment & Behavior. 23, 395-422.
doi:10.1177/0013916591234001
Selia, A.-F. & L.-M. Anderson 1982. Estimating costs of tree preservation on residential
lots. Journal of Arboriculture. 8, 182-185.
Shafer, C.S.; B. K. Lee & S. Turner 2000. A tale of three greenway trails: user
perceptions related to quality of life. Landscape and Urban Planing 49, 163-178.
Sherman, S.A., J. W. Varni; R. S. Ulrich & V. L. Malcarne 2005. Post-occupancy
evaluation of healing gardens in a pediatric cancer center. Landscape and Urban
Planing 73, 167-183.
Simson, A.J. 2000. The post-romantic landscape of Telford New Town. Landscape and
Urban Planing 52, 189-197.

27
Perception of the landscape by Mongolian nomads

ALENA OBERFALZEROVÁ
Abstract
The following paper is intended to mediate the subtle aspects of the perception of the
landscape by Mongolian nomads. It is located in the C’uluut region of the Arhangai
Aimag, which the author repeatedly visited in connection with her ethnolinguistic field
work. The paper discusses the individual important places in that landscape and their
characteristic features as they are described by the local people (petrified bull Buh
Hairhan, ferocious and haunted places, Ovoo of the Lamas’ Red Hill, and finally
Woman-Fish, daughter of the Lord of Waters). The reader can share the experience of
the adventure of discovering and understanding the dynamism of the world of nature
myths, of which even the author herself has become an integral part. She then offers a
psychological interpretation of the changes in her own manner of perception of the
landscape, while also pointing out the specifics of the process of contact between two
different cultures.
References
Bennigsen, A. P., Legendy i skazki central’noj Azii [Legends and tales of Central Asia].
IV., Sankt Peterburg 1912.
Bertagajev, Т. А.,: Kosmičeskije predstavlenija v mifologii mongoľskich plemen [Cosmic
ideas in the mythology of the Mongolian tribes]. In: Istoriko-filologičeskije issledovanija,
Мoskva 1974.
Cerensodnom, D., Mongol domog u’lger [Mongolian myths]. Ulaanbaatar 1989.
Cleaves, F. W., The secret history of the Mongols. Harvard University Press, Baltimore
1982.
Gaadamba, S’., Cerensodnom, D., Mongol ardiin aman zocholiin deez bic’ig [An
anthology of Mongolian folklore]. Ulaanbaatar 1978.
Gaadamba, S’., Sampildendev, Mongol ardiin aman zohiol [Mongolian oral folklore].
Ulaanbaatar 1988.
Lessing, D., Ferdinand, Mongolian-English Dictionary. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles 1960.
Luvsandorz, Dž., Malc’nii erdem The wisdom of herdsmen. Ulaanbaatar 1986.
MacCormac, E., Metaphor and myth in science and religion. Duke University Press.
Durham, North Carolina 1976.
Mongoin nevterhii tol’ Mongolian encyclopaedia. Ulaanbaatar 2000.

28
Mongol yos zans’liin ih tailbar tol’ Great monolingual dictionary of Mongolian habits.
Ulaanbaatar 1999.
Mostaert, A, Texte oraux ordos. Peiping 1957.
Oberfalzerová, A., Metaphors and Nomads. Triton, Praha 2006.
Poucha, P., Tajná Kronika Mongolů, Praha 1955.
Pozdnějev, A. A., Mongolija i mongoly [Mongolia and the Mongols]. Tom 1–3, Sankt
Peterburg 1898–1901.
Sayincogtu, V., Temdeg-ün soyol The culture of omens]. Kökeqota 1999.
Sečenmöngke, D., Irügel magtagal-daki monggolc’ud-un soyol-un sedkilge (Cultural
thought of the Mongols in yo’rool and magta’l. Begejing 2000.
Sonom, Sodnomdorz’, Monggol čeger-ün yosun The System of Mongolian Prohibitions.
Kökeqota 1991.
Stanja, J., Pohřební obřady Mongolů [Burial rites of the Mongols]. M.A. Thesis,
unpublished. Praha 1998.
Vangjil, B., Köke tülkigür sky blue key. Kökeqota 1987.

29
Urban-Historical Landscape Analysis on the Basis of Mental

Perceptions Case Study: Tajrish Neighborhood
Anoosheh Goharia, Homa Behbahanib, Ismael Salehic
Abstract
Despite the close affinity between collective memory and urban structures as the
relationship between what is hidden and what is visible; rapid changes throughout the
city have caused a disconnection between integrated memories and landscape
cohesion. As a context for memories, the historical urban landscape proves to be
valuable. The present research seeks to identify elements and signs in urban landscape
design that is associated with collective memories and to determine the extent of their
impact on maintainability and consolidation of the cultural integrity and attachment to
residential areas and urban spaces. Now, a question is raised: Which kinds of elements
help us to reach landscape perception in relation to collective memory? Accordingly,
major categories, which have influences on mental perceptions, based on the studies,
are elements that affect landscape, mental attachment, rootedness, and social relations.
Identification and utilization of these categories in urban landscape design would enable
the perception of the landscape as a mental reality that is tied with memories of the
users of the space and is possible with elements such as signs in the landscape. To
address research inquiries, the researcher has surveyed components of collective
memory via landscape analysis method. The use of qualitative techniques is dominant
in the paper along with some quantitative methods, and the under-investigation location
is Shemiran. The research method was comprised of field survey and obtaining
information regarding history of the site. In order to answer research questions,
landscape analysis method based on subjective perceptions was selected. The
statistical population of the study included 30 residents of the district that were 30 years
old or older. The respondents were presented with the obtained elements, as well as 6
pictures in order to score them based on their subjective perception. Questionnaire data
was analyzed and elements that impact subjective perceptions in urban landscape were
identified. What matters is to identify the factors that create collective memories and its
durability in environmental aspects and the facet that whether adopting them in
landscape design can prove to be effective in maintaining and enhancing cultural
coherence, attachment to residence, and urban spaces, thus improving urban
landscape quality.
References
Aminzadeh, Bahram, Re-Identifying the Effect of Collective Rituals on the Configuration
of a Traditional City, (2007), Fine Arts Journal, v. 32, p. 5-13
Baron, Robert M., (2004), Urban Palimpsest: Aesthetics of a Layered Structure,
translated by Parviz Barati, Architecture and Construction Journal, v. 3

30
Belanger, A. (2002). Urban space and collective memory: Analysing the various
dimensions of the production of memory, Canadian Journal of Urban Research11. 1:
pp.69-92
Chokor, B.A.(1990) Urban Landscape and Environmental Quality Preferences in
Ibadan, Nigeria : an Exploration, Landscape and Urban Planning, 19: pp.263-280
Francis, P. Hutchinson, P. J. (2012). Landscapes for peace: A case study of active
learning about urban environments and the future, Futures 44: pp.24–35
Habibi, Seyyed Mohsen, 1378 (1999), Incidental life and collective memory, SAFFEH
Journal (16-21), 9th year, Issue #28
Huyssen, A. (1997). The Voids of Berlin, Cultural Inquiry, Vol.24
Jinghui, W.( 2012). Problems and solutions in the protection of historical urban areas,
Frontiers of Architectural Research 1: pp. 40–43
Keramati, M., Ahmadi, S. (2011). Published by Elsevier Ltd, pp. 985-988.
Khosrokhavar, Farhad, (2004) , Cities and Collective Memory, Architecture and
Construction Journal (112-114), v. 3
Kincaid, A. (2005). Memory and the City: Urban Renewal and Literary Memoirs in
Contemporary Dublin, College Literature32. 2:pp. 16-٤٢
Lynch, Kevin, 1993, The Image of the City, Manouchehr Mozayani, University of Tehran
Publications
Norman, B. (2011), Regional Environmental Governance: Interdisciplinary Perspectives,
Theoretical Issues, Comparative Designs (REGov), Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences 14: pp.193–202
Philip, B., Emma, S. (2014), The power of perceptions: Exploring the role of urban
design in cycling behaviors and healthy ageing, Transportation Research Procedia 4:
pp. 68 – 79
Rachel, M., Rachel E. S.(2013). Stumbling upon history: collective memory and the
urban landscape, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. GeoJournal 78:pp.791-801
Rossi, A. (1984). The Architecture of the City, Cambridge: MIT Press. Schwartz, B.
(1982). "The Social Context ofCommemoration: A Study in Collective Memory.
Soltani, Ali; Zargari Marandi, Ebrahim; Namdarian, Ahmad Ali; 2013, Formation,
Reinforcement, and Durability of Memory in Urban Spaces, Case Study: Shahid
Cahmran Area of Shiraz, Residence and Rural Environment Quarterly, v. 141, spring, p.
87-98

31
Sustaining beauty. The performance of appearance

Elizabeth K. Meyer
Abstract
Sustainable landscape design is generally understood in relation to three principles -
ecological health, social justice and economic prosperity. Rarely do aesthetics factor
into sustainability discourse, except in negative asides conflating the visible with the
aesthetic and rendering both superfluous. This article examines the role of beauty and
aesthetics in a sustainability agenda. It argues that it will take more than ecologically
regenerative designs for culture to be sustainable, that what is needed are designed
landscapes that provoke those who experience them to become more aware of how
their actions affect the environment, and to care enough to make changes. This involves
considering the role of aesthetic environmental experiences, such as beauty, in re-
centering human consciousness from an egocentric to a more bio-centric perspective.
This argument in the form of a manifesto is inspired by American landscape architects
whose work is not usually understood as contributing to sustainable design.
References
Amidon, J. 2005. Hypernature. In Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates. Allegheny
Riverfront Park. N.Y: Princeton Architectural Press: 56-68
Beck, U. 1995. Ecological Enlightenment. Essays on the Politics of the risk Society.
Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press
Benezra, N. and Viso, O. 1999. Regarding Beauty. Washington, D.C.: Hirshhorn
Museum
Benson. J. and Roe, M. 2000. Landscape and Sustainability. London: Spon Press
Berleant, A. 1991. Art and Engagement. Philadelphia: Temple University
Berrizbeitia, A. 2005. Roberto Burle Marx in Caracas. Parque del Este 1956-61.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
Berrizbeitia, A. 2006. Replacing Process. In: Julia Czerniak and George Hargreaves
(ed.) Large Parks. New York: Princeton Architectural Press: 175-198
Beveridge, C. and Rocheleau, P. 1995. Frederick Law Olmsted. Designing the
American Landscape. N.Y.: Rizzoli
Calkins, M. 2002. Green Specs. Landscape Architecture 92 (8): 40-45, 96-97.
Calkins, M. 2002. Green Specs II. Landscape Architecture 92 (9): 46-50, 103-109.

32
Calkins, M. 2006. Greening the Blacktop. Landscape Architecture 96 (10): 142, 144,
146-159.
Danto, A. 1999. Beauty from Ashes. In: Benezra and Viso. regarding Beauty.
Washington, D.C.: Hirshhorn Museum: 183-197
Eliot, Jr. C. 1896. What is Fair Must be Fit. Garden and Forest (April 1): 132-133.
Gore, A. 2006. An Inconvenient Truth. Emmaus, PA.: Rodale Press
Grawe, S. 2007. Sustainability 24/7. Dwell. At Home in the Modern World (November)
11.
Hester, R. 2005. Design for Ecological Democracy. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press
Hickey, D. 1993. The Invisible Dragon. Four Essays on Beauty. Los Angeles: Art Issues
Hohmann. H. and Langhorst, J. 2005. An Apocalyptic Manifesto. Landscape
Architecture 95 (4): 28-34.
Jackson, J. B. 1984. The Word Itself. In: Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. New
Haven: Yale University Press
Kingsland, S. 2005. The Evolution of American Ecology. 1890-2000. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press
Land On-line. 2007. Landscape Architecture News Digest. ASLA Call for Education
Sessions for the 2008 Annual Meeting. www.asla.org/land/2007/1106/proposals.html
[accessed 29 January 2008]
Lyle, J. 1994. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. NY: John Wiley
Sutton, S. B. (ed) 1979. Civilizing American Cities. A Selection of Frederick Law
Olmsted’s Writings on City Landscape. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press
Thayer, R. 1994. Gray World, Green Heart: Technology, Nature, and the Sustainable
Landscape. New York: John Wiley
Thompson, I. 2000. The Ethics of Sustainability. In: Benson and Rowe. Landscape and
Sustainability. London: Spon Press
Thompson, W. 2007. How Green is your magazine? Landscape Architecture (97): 11.
United Nations. 1987.Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development. www.un.org/issues/m-susdev.html [accessed 26 January 2008]
Urban, J. 2004. Organic Maintenance: Mainstream at Last? Landscape Architecture 94
(3): 38, 40, 42, 44-45
Werthmann, C. 2007. Green Roof. A Case Study. Michael Van

33
The theory of affordances

James J. Gibson
Abstract
The medium, substances, surfaces, objects, places, and other animals have
affordances for a given animal. They offer benefits or injury, life or death. This is why
they need to be perceived. The possibilities of the environment and the way of life of the
animal go together inseparably. The environment constrains what the animal can do,
and the concept of a niche in ecology reflects this fact. Within limits, the human animal
can alter the affordances of the environment but is still the creature of his or her
situation. There is information in stimulation for the physical properties of things, and
presumably there is information for the environmental properties. The doctrine that says
we must distinguish among the variables of things before we can learn their meanings is
questionable. Affordances are properties taken with reference to the ob-server. They
are neither physical nor phenomenal. The hypothesis of information in ambient light to
specify affordances is the culmination of ecological optics. The notion of invariants that
are related at one extreme to the motives and needs of an observer and at the other
extreme to the substances and surfaces of a world provides a new approach to
psychology.
References
Psychologies:
Principles of Gestalt Psychology (Koffka, 1935),
invitation character (by J. F. Brown in 1929)
valence (by D. K. Adams in 1931; cf. Marrow, 1969,
Perception of the Visual World by James Jerome Gibson

34
The Interpretation
Imagery, Ideals, and Social Values:
and Documentation of Cultural Landscapes
LINDA FLINT MCCLELLAND
Abstract
The cultural landscape is the product of a dynamic process and change driven by
natural and cultural forces. Tension-and future, between change and continuity,
between conflicting peting social and political interests-has historically marked of
cultural landscapes. While some view the landscape as an cultural artifacts each with its
own meanings, only when landscape holistically within broad parameters as a unified by
natural and cultural forces, can we read and interpret its ing. Viewed holistically, the
landscape becomes a testament use, aesthetic preference, social tradition, and political
this view may support or challenge broad theories of environmental minism, manifest
destiny, or cultural assimilation. In no culture is the cycle of change and continuity so
evident and by public historians so
References
Vision, Culture, and Landscape: Working Papers from the BerkeleySymposium on
Cultural Landscape Interpretation, March, 1990 by Paul Groth;
The Meaningof Gardens: Idea, Place, and Action by Mark Francis, Randolph T. Hester
and ;
WesternImages, Western Landscapes: Travels along U.S. 89 by Thomas R. Vale and
Geraldine Vale;
From Palisade Head to Sugar Loaf: An Inventory of Minnesota's Geographic Features
ofHistoric and Cultural Significance by Carole Zellie;
Community and Continuity: TheHistory, Architecture and Cultural Landscape of La
Tierra Amarilla by Chris Wilson andDavid Kammer;
The Rustic Landscape of Rim Village, 1927-1941, Crater Lake National Park,Oregon by
Cathy A. Gilbert and Gretchen A. Luxenberg;
Silent City in a Hill: Landscapesof Memory and Boston's Mount Auburn Cemetery by
Blanche Linden-Ward
Review by: Linda Flint McClelland
The Public Historian, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Spring, 1991), pp. 107-124

35
A Review of Landscape Assessment Paradigms in

Landscape Perception Research
Salaudeen, A. B.1, Dung-Gwom, J. Y.2, Bayo David3
Abstract
Intriguing landscapes ignite the preferential consciousness of man for its assessment.
Theories of landscape aesthetics has since been under scientific scrutiny with focus on
what determines landscape preference. In this regards, two main schools of thoughts
have merged in terms of aesthetics quality inherent in man’s mental view or in the
quality of landscape viewed by man. The paper therefore presents practical
considerations in adopting and applying these paradigms, especially in terms of
theoretical background, criteria for testing and measurement and the strengths and
weaknesses of these schools of thoughts. This is found imperative for researchers to
understand before consideration of suitable landscape approach in landscape studies.
References
Anne, R. B. and Catherine, H. (2000). Environmental Planning for Site Development. E
& FN Spon: Taylor and Francis Group Great Britain.
Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J., Cañas-Madueño, J. & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing
the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, pp115–125.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (1980). Visual Resource Management Program.
Washington, DC; US, Department of the Interior.
Clamp, P. 1999. A Study in the Evaluation of Landscape and the Impact of Roads.
Landscape Research News. 1(11): pp6-7.
Dwyer, J., Schroeder, H. and Gobster, P. (2006). The Significance of Urban Trees and
Forests: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Values. Journal of Arboriculture. Vol.
17(10): pp 276 – 284.
Fairweather, J. & Swaffield, S., 2000. Q Method using Photographs to Study
Perceptions of the Environment in New Zealand, In: Addams, H. & Proops, J. (eds),
2000. Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology. E.
Elgar, Cheltenham. pp14-40
Falade, J. B. and Oduwaye, L. O. (1998). Essentials of Landscape and Site Planning.
Omega Hi-Tech Information and Planning Systems Ltd. Lagos pp. 259.
Falade, J. B. (1985). Nigeria’s Urban Open Space: An inquiry into their Planning and
Landscape Qualities. PhD Thesis, Department of Architecture. Edinburgh University
UK.

36
Hamilton, K. (2006). Green Adjustments to GDP. Resources Policy, Vol. 20 No. 3 Pp.
155 – 168.
Harris, R.W. (2004). Arboriculture Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs
and Vines. 4 th Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey pp. 416.
Jackson, R. (2001). The Green City. Macmillan Company. Australia. Pp165.
Jongman, R.H.G (eds). 2005. The New Dimension of the European landscapes.
Wagering en . WU.
Kaltenborn, B. and Bjerke, T. 2002. Associations between Environmental Value
Orientations and Landscape Preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 59,
pp1–11
Kaplan, R. 2001. The Role of Nature in the Context of the Workplace. Landscape Urban
Planning. Vol. 26, pp 193-201.
Kuo, F.E., Bacaicoa, M. and Suillivan, W.C. (2000). Transforming Inner City
Landscapes: Trees Sense of Safety, and Preference. Environ Behav. Vol. 30(1), pp 28-
59.
Laing, R. (2006).The Relationship of Observer and Landscape in Landscape
Evaluation. In Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, No.66, 130
Lawal, M. I. (2000). Principles and Practice of Housing Management in Nigeria. ILCO
Books Publishers, Lagos. pp281.
Lowenthal, D. (2007). Living with and looking at Landscape. Landscape Research, 32,
5, 635 – 656
Matthews, J. A., Herbert, D. T. (ed.). (2004). Unifying Geography: Common Heritage,
Shared Future. London: Routledge. pp396.
Nowak, D.J., and Walton, J.T. (2006). Projected Urban Growth (2000-2050) and its
Estimated Impact on the US Forest Resource. Journal of Forestry 103(8): 383-389.
Obembe, T. O. 2009. Landscaping as a Professional Activity in Nigeria: Lagos State as
a Case Study.Unpublished MSc. Dissertation,Department of Urban and Regional
Planning, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Pp 192.
Wana, J. P. (2007). Metro Nature Services: Functions, Benefits and Values. In: S.
Wachter and E. Birch (eds.), Greener Cities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Westphal, L.M. (2003). Urban Greening and Social Benefits: A Study of Empowerment
Outcomes. Journal of Arboriculture 29 (3): 137-147.
Williams, D. and Patterson, M., (2007). Snapshots of what, exactly? A Comment on
Methodological Experimentation and Conceptual Foundations in place Research.

37
Cultural Differences in Landscape Perception

Irina Matijosaitiene, Okyay Ucan, Armenui Minasyan
Abstract
Novelty of the research presented in this paper is highlighted by the fact that first time
the road landscape perception of the representatives of cultures of the post-Soviet
countries was compared: Lithuanian, Armenian, Russian, adding to them Turkish,
Arabian and African cultures. Sociological survey based on the assessment of road
landscape views according to 7-rank semantic differential scale was conducted to the
respondents of all six cultures. Linear regression analysis let us build a regression
model of the holonomic road landscape for each culture. The results demonstrate quite
considerable differences in landscape perception by the Turkish, Arabian and especially
African respondents comparing them to the Lithuanian, Armenian and Russian cultures.
While landscape perception of the Lithuanians, Armenians and Russians also differs
from each other in the group of the analyzed post-Soviet cultures. The most contrast
and different results are derived from the analysis of African culture.
References
Herzog T.R., Herbert E.J., Kaplan R., Crooks C.L. 2000. Cultural and developmental
comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and behavior,
32(3), 323-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916500323002
Griboedov A. 1831. The miery of having a mind. Kiev. IBM SPSS Statistics 20.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.
New York, Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan R., Herbert, E.J. 1987. Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for
natural settings. Landscape and urban planning, 14, 281-293.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(87)90040-5
Matijosaitiene I. 2014. The Principles of Modelling of Hedonomic Road Landscape
(Lithuania Case Study) // Landscape research. In press.
Matijosaitiene I. 2011. The principles of formation of the hedonomic road landscape.
Kaunas, Technologija.
Priego C., Breuste H.-J., Rojas J. 2008. Perception References and value of nature in
urban landscapes: a comparative analysis of cities in Germany, Chile and Spain.
Landscape online, 7, 1-22. Available at:
http://www.landscapeonline.de/archive/2008/7/Priego_etal_ LO7_2008_Animation.pdf
(accessed 9 May, 2014).

38
Visual perception of the rural landscape: a study case in Val

di Chiana aretina, Tuscany (Italy)
Veronica Alampi Sottini, Iacopo Bernetti, Matteo Pecchi, Maria Cipollaro
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to assess the perceived visual quality of the rural landscape in
the Valdichiana aretina, Italy, through a survey conducted on a sample of ordinary
people. The research comprises of three steps. First, the territory under study is divided
into homogeneous landscape units through the implementation of GIS-based
methodologies. Second, a photo-sampling of the area is carried out and a direct survey
is conducted using the photographic material collected. Lastly, the information gathered
is processed with the Multiple Factor Analysis technique. The results reveal that the
visual quality of the landscape units is perceived differently according to the sets of
variables summarized by the extracted components: composition and structure,
stewardship and individual experience.
References
Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J.F., Canas-Madueno, J.A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004).
Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and urban planning 69(1):
115-125.
Bolasco, S. (1999). Analisi multidimensionale dei dati: metodi, strategie e criteri
d’interpretazione. Carocci.
Borin, M., Passoni, M., Thiene, M., & Tempesta, T. (2010). Multiple functions of buffer
strips in farming areas. European journal of agronomy 32(1), 103-111.
Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and
landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied geography 27(2): 89-
111.
Blumentrath, C., & Tveit, M.S. (2014). Visual characteristics of roads: A literature review
of people’s perception and Norwegian design practice. Transportation research part A:
policy and practice 59: 58-71.
Cloquell-Ballester, V.A., del Carmen Torres-Sibille, A., Cloquell-Ballester, V.A., &
Santamarina-Siurana, M.C. (2012). Human alteration of the rural landscape: Variations
in visual perception. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32(1): 50-60.
Conrad, E., Christie, M., & Fazey, I. (2011). Understanding public perceptions of
landscape: a case study from Gozo, Malta. Applied Geography 31(1): 159-170.
Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention.
http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/176

39
Daniel, T.C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the
21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 54(1): 267-281.
De Montis, A. (2014). Impacts of the European Landscape Convention on national
planning systems: A comparative investigation of six case studies. Landscape and
Urban Planning 124: 53-65.
Dramstad, W.E., Fry, G., Fjellstad, W.J., Skar, B., Helliksen, W., Sollund, M.L. &
Framstad, E. (2001). Integrating landscape-based values. Norwegian monitoring of
agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57(3): 257-268.
Eiter, S. & Vik, M.L. (2015). Public participation in landscape planning: Effective
methods for implementing the European Landscape Convention in Norway. Land Use
Policy 44: 44-53.
Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Ode, Å., & Velarde, M.D. (2009). The ecology of visual landscapes:
Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators.
Ecological Indicators 9(5): 933-947.
Fyhri, A., Jacobsen, J.K.S., & Tømmervik, H. (2009). Tourists’ landscape perceptions
and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape and Urban Planning
91(4): 202-211.
Hunziker, M. & Kienast, F. (1999). Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities
on scenic beauty–a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape
Ecology 14(2): 161-176. ISTAT, (2010). VI General Census of Agriculture, ISTAT,
Rome, Italy.http://dati-censimentoagricoltura.istat.it/Index.aspx
Soini, K., Vaarala, H., & Pouta, E. (2012). Residents’ sense of place and landscape
perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning 104(1): 124-
134.
Stenseke, M. (2009). Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: lessons
from Sweden. Land Use Policy 26(2): 214-223.
Swanwick, C. (2009). Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape.
Land Use Policy 26: S62-S75.
Tempesta, T. (2010). The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: A study of the
Veneto plain in Italy. Landscape and Urban Planning 97(4): 258-272.
Tempesta, T. (2014). People’s preferences and landscape evaluation in Italy: a review.
New Medit 13(1): 50-59.
Tveit, M.S. (2009). Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a
comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management 90(9): 2882-2888.

Imagery in Landscape Collection of Research Paper

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Imagery in Landscape Collection of Research Paper

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Imagery in Landscape

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

ALENA OBERFALZEROVÁ ...................................................................................... 27

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

A view of the city: The urban Landscape and its Architectural

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

Measuring Landscape Esthetics: The Scenic beauty

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

Fabos, J. G.1971. An analysis of environmental quality ranking systems in recreation.

Leopold, Luna B. 1969. Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic factors among

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION: RESEARCH, APPLICATION AND

ERVIN H. ZUBE’ , JAMES L. SELL’ and JONATHAN G. TAYLOR’

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

Use of Tencent Street View Imagery for Visual Perception of

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

Vanwolleghem, G.; Dyck, D.V.; Ducheyne, F.; Bourdeaudhuij, I.D.; Cardon, G.

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

Human Landscape Perception

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 21, No.1, pp.61-72, ISSN: 0272-4944.

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

Perception and Value of Nature in Urban Landscapes

C. Priego, J.-H. Breuste & J. Rojas

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

Perception of the landscape by Mongolian nomads

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

Urban-Historical Landscape Analysis on the Basis of Mental

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

Sustaining beauty. The performance of appearance

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

The theory of affordances

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

A Review of Landscape Assessment Paradigms in

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

Cultural Differences in Landscape Perception

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

Visual perception of the rural landscape: a study case in Val

GARIMA DUBEY | SPA, DELHI

IMAGINARY IN LANDSCAPE | Gate Work

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi