Environmental Science and Bioengineering

Environmental Science and Bioengineering

Evaluating the aesthetic quality of the landscape in the environment: A Review of the Concepts and Scientific Developments in the World

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Ali Jahani 1
Maryam Saffariha 2
Samira Ghiyasi 3
1 Dept. of Natural Environment and Biodiversity, College of Environment, Karaj-Iran.
2 PhD Student in Rangeland Ecology, College of Natural Resources, University of Tehran.
3 Department of Environmental Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran-Iran.
10.22034/uoe.2019.103618
Abstract
Landscape will affect people’s perception of the environment, so people’s behavior will change in the environment. Landscape recognition and accurate assessment of this area provide optimal planning and management of the land and have provided extensive studies in recent years around the world. While this article has observed various stages of scientific research, it also has pursued micro or macro ideas containing in previous works and has sought how changes  in the aesthetic quality estimation of landscape methods over time in  various scientific fields.  landscape beauty is the result of the interaction between the biophysical characteristics and human  observation, which leads to methods based on perception (subjective) and expertise (objective)  to assess landscape beauty. Since there is a complicated relationship between landscape perception and landscapes experiencing through a range of personal perspectives and perceptions, mental evaluation is usually dealing with challenges. The most significant benefit of assessment is based on its specialized efficiency, which  uses automated methods to evaluate at a  wider level. However, expert-based evaluations do not achieve high accuracy since they are highly dependent on  specific knowledge and  evaluator's judgment. Assessing the aesthetic quality of the landscape by integrating approaches and using comprehensive methods will lead to favorable results. Implementation of advanced tools and techniques such as GIS, Remote Sensing, Mathematical modeling, and Artificial intelligence in  assessing the aesthetic quality of the landscape will enhance the accuracy and speed of the results.
Keywords
Landscape
objective evaluation
subjective evaluation
aesthetic quality
  1. Aghajani, H., Marvi Mohadjer, M.R., Jahani, A., Asef, M.R., Shirvany, A., & Azaryan, M. (2014). Investigation of affective habitat factors affecting on abundance of wood macro fungi and sensitivity analysis using the artificial neural network (case study: Kheyrud forest, Noshahr). Iranian Journal of Forest and Poplar Research, 21(4): 617-628.
  2. Alessa, N., Kliskey, A., & Brown, G., (2008). Social–ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 27–39.
  3. Atik, M., & Ortacesme, V., (2010). Peyzaj Karakter Analizi Yöntemi ile Antalya SideBölgesi Kültürel Peyzajlarının Karakter Analizi. TÜB˙ITAK Arastırma Projesi108Y345., pp. 96.
  4. Beunen, R., & Opdam, P., (2011). When landscape planning becomes landscape governance, what happens to the science? Landscape and Urban Planning 100,324–326.
  5. Brabyn, L., (2015). Modelling landscape experience using “experions”. Applied Geography 62: 210-216.
  6. Brown, G., & Brabyn, L., (2012). An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(3), 317-331.
  7. Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2011). Public participation GIS: A new method for national park planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102,1–15.
  8. Chen, B; Ochieng, A;  & Adimo Zhiyi, B. (2009). Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users’ perspective: The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 93:76–8
  9. Clement, J. M., & Cheng, A. S. (2010). Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Applied Geography, 31,393–400.
  10. Council of Europe, (2000). The European landscape convention. Strasbourg, Council of Europe press, 380pp.
  11. Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21 stcentury. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54,267–281.
  12. de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L., (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272.
  13. Franco, D., Franco, D., Mannino, I., & Zanetto, G. (2003). The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: The role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62, 119–138.
  14. Ghajari, A., Lotfali, E., Azari, M., Fateh, R., & Kalantary, S. (2015). Fungal Airborne Contamination as a Serious Threat for Respiratory Infection in the Hematology Ward, Tanaffos; 14(4): 257–261.
  15. Hetherington, J., Daniel, T.C., & Brown, T.C., (1994). Is motion more important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environmental perception research. J. Environ. Psychol. 13, 283–291.
  16. Howley, P., (2011). Landscape aesthetics: assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecol. Econ. 72, 161–169.
  17. Jahani, A. (2017a). Sycamore failure hazard risk modeling in urban green space. Journal of spatial analysis environmental hazards, 3(4), 35-48.
  18. Jahani, A. (2017b). Aesthetic quality evaluation modeling of forest landscape using artificial neural network, J. of Wood & Forest Science and Technology, 24(3):17-33.
  19. Jahani, A. (2019a). Sycamore failure hazard classification model (SFHCM): an environmental decision support system (EDSS) in urban green spaces. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16, 955–964 .
  20. Jahani, A. (2019b). Forest landscape aesthetic quality model (FLAQM): A comparative study on landscape modelling using regression analysis and artificial neural networks. Journal of Forest Science, 65(2), 61-69.
  21. Jahani, A., Feghhi, J., & Zobeiri, M. (2012). Spatial forest simulation to obtain forest statistics (Case study: Gorazbon district of Kheyrud forest), Journal of forest and wood products (JFWP) (Irainian Journal of natural resources), 65(2),147-155
  22. Jahani, A., Makhdoum, M., Feghhi, J., & Etemad, V. (2011). Determination of landscape quality and lookout points for ecotourism landuse (Case study: Patom district of Kheyrud forest), Journal of environmental researches 2(3), 13-20.
  23. Jahani, A., & Mohammadi Fazel, A., (2017). Aesthetic quality modeling of landscape in urban green space using artificial neural network, Journal of Natural Environment 69(4), 951-963.
  24. James, P., & Gittins, J.W., (2007). Local landscape character assessment: an evaluation of community-led schemes in Cheshire. Landsc. Res. 32 (4), 423–442.
  25. Jellema, A., Stobbelaar, D.J., Groot, J.C.J., & Rossing, W.A.H., (2009). Landscape character assessment using region growing techniques in geographical information systems. J. Environ. Manag. 90, S161–S174.
  26. Khaleghpanah, R., Jahani, A., Khorasani, N., & Goshtasb, H. (2019). Prediction model of citizens' satisfaction in urban parks using artificial neural network. Natural Environment. 72(2): 239-250.
  27. Kroll, F., Müller, F., Haase, D., & Fohrer, N., (2012). Rural urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 29, 521–535.
  28. Lothian, A., (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landsc. Urban Plann. 44,177–198.
  29. Meitner, M. J. (2004). Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: Relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 3–13.
  30. Mesbahzadeh, T, Jafari, M, & Saffariha, M. (2017). Applicability of ETM Satellite Images for Surveying Land Cover Condition (Case study: Kashan-Iran). Elixir International Journal 108 47685-47690.
  31. Nassauer, J., (2012). Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning 106, 221–229.
  32. Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Messager, P., & Miller, D., (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 90, 375–383.
  33. Palmer, J. F., & Hoffman, R. E. (2001). Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 149–161.
  34. Pocewicz, A., Schnitzer, R., & Nielsen-Pincus, M. (2010). The social geography of southern Wyoming: Important places, development, and natural resource management.  Lander, WY:  The Nature Conservancy., 16 pp.
  35. Purcell, A.T., Peron, E.M., & Berto, R., (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types.  Environ. Behav. 33, 93–106.
  36. Raymond, C., & Brown, G. (2007). A spatial method for assessing resident and visitor attitudes toward tourism growth and development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,15: 520–540.
  37. Raymond, C., & Brown, G. (2011). Assessing spatial associations between perceptions of  landscape  value  and  climate  change  risk  for  use  in  climate  change  planning. Climatic Change, 104, 653–678.
  38. Roth, M., & Gruehn, D., (2005). Scenic quality modelling in real and virtual environments. In: Buhmann, E., Paar, P., Bishop, I.D., Lange, E. (Eds.), Trends in Real-time Visualization and Participation,. Wichmann Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 291–302.
  39. Saffariha, M., Azarnivand, H., & Tavili, A. (2014). Investigation effects of rangeland exclosure on some soil properties in Artemisia sieberi, Stipa hohenacheriana and Salsola rigida habitats (case study: Roodshoor, Saveh, Iran). Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences. 4: 195-204.
  40. Schirpke, U., Tasser, E., & Tappeiner, U. (2013). Predicting scenic beauty of mountain regions. Landscape and Urban Planning 111: 1– 12.
  41. Stamps, A.E., (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments. A meta-analysis. Percept. Motor Skills 71, 907–913.
  42. Swanwick, C., (2009). Society’s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy 26, 562–575.
  43. Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2001). Capitalising on multiplicity: A transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 143–157.
  44. Turner, S.C., (2005). Devon Historic Landscape Characterization. Devon County Council Historic Environment Service/English Heritage, Exeter.
  45. Tveit, M. S. (2009). Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2882–2888.
  46. Tyrvainnen, L., Makinen, K., & Schipperijn, J. (2007). Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79, 5–19.
  47. Zube, E., Sell, J., & Taylor, J. (1982). Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.