Interpretation of the visual perception of landscape change by a questionnaire survey using 2D Google Earth images
Keywords:
visual perception, landscape change, questionnaire survey, 2D, google earthAbstract
Changes in land use and land cover are predominantly driven by economic processes affected by European policies. A method for assessing the impact of these changes on sustainability was developed in the SENSOR project funded by the 6th EU Research Framework Program. The digital model which was developed, called "SIAT" (Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool), is a decision support tool that presents the consequences of various future land use scenarios by indicators, showing their compliance with the sustainability criteria. In the project, the landscape research team of the University of Sopron developed land use sensitive landscape indicators that were used in the SIAT. Two indicators that measure the continuity of land cover and the visual attractiveness were presented in a past edition of this journal.
References
Farrington J., Kuhlmann, T., Rothman, D. S., Imrichnowa, Z., Reid, L., Konkoly Gyuro, E. 2008: Reflections on Social and Economic Indicators for Land Use Change. In: Helming, P. T., M. Perez-Soba (Ed.): Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer. pp. 325–349.
Helming K.; Pérez-Soba M.; Tabbush P. 2008: Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes. Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co. KG. Berlin, Germany
Verweij P. J. F. M.; Sieber B.; Wien J. J. F.; Müller K. 2006: SIAT, a Sustainable Impact Assessment Tool for Understanding the drivers in integrated impact assessment. International Conference IEMSS, Vol. Vermont USA.
Konkoly-Gyuró É.; Jombach S.; Tatai Z. 2008: A tájidentitás indikátorai európai fenntarthatósági hatásvizsgálatban. (Indicators of landscape identity in the European Sustainability Impact Assessment) 4D Tájépítészeti és Kertművészeti Folyóirat, Vol. 9. pp. 52–59.
Konkoly-Gyuró É.; Jombach S.; Tatai Z. 2008: A tájidentitás indikátorai európai fenntarthatósági hatásvizsgálatban. (Indicators of landscape identity in the European Sustainability Impact Assessment). 4D Tájépítészeti és Kertművészeti Folyóirat, Vol. 9. pp. 52–59.
Jombach S. 2012: Távérzékelés és a térinformatikai feldolgozás szerepe a tájkarakter-elemzésben.( The role of remote sensing and geospatial processing in landscape character assessment). In: Sallay, Á. (Ed.): Tájmetria/Tájértékelés. Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem Tájépítészeti Kar. Budapest. pp. 29-41.
Hehl-Lange S. 2001: Structural elements of the visual landscape and their ecological functions. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 54(1–4). pp. 107-115.
Lange E.; Bishop I. 2001: Our visual landscape: analysis, modeling, visualization and protection. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 54(1–4). pp. 1-3.
Tress B.; Tress G.; Décamps H.; d’Hauteserre A.-M. 2001: Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 57(3–4). pp. 137-141.
Tahvanainen L.; Ihalainen M.; HietalaKoivu R.; Kolehmainen O.; Tyrväinen L.; Nousiainen I.; Helenius J. 2002: Measures of the EU Agri-Environmental Protection Scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 63(3). pp. 213-227.
Kollányi L.; Jombach S. 2008: Vizuális esztétikai tájelemzések. (Visual-aesthetical landscape assessments). In: Szabó, V.; Orosz, Z.; Nagy, R. (Eds.): Fazekas I IV. Magyar Földrajzi Konferencia, Debreceni Egyetem. Debrecen. 230-236.
Jombach S.; Kollányi L.; Szabó Á.; Filepné K. K.; Nagy G. G.; Molnár L. J.; T T. D.; V M.; Szilvácsku Z.; Sallay Á.; Valánszki I.; Csemez A. 2014: Visualisation and landscape modelling to understand landscapes in transition (Landscape management of “Nagyberek”, Hungary). In: Maja Simoneti, U. K. (Ed.). Ceske Budejovice. pp. 81-93.
Scott M. J.; Canter D. V. 1997: PICTURE OR PLACE? A MULTIPLE SORTING STUDY OF LANDSCAPE. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 17(4). pp. 263-281.
Wherrett J. R. 1999: Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 45(4). pp. 209-217.
Clay G. R.; Daniel T. C. 2000: Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 49(1–2). pp. 1-13.
Tveit M. S. 2009: Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90(9). pp. 2882-2888.
Martín B.; Ortega E.; Otero I.; Arce R. M. 2016: Landscape character assessment with GIS using map-based indicators and photographs in the relationship between landscape and roads. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 180. pp. 324-334.
Wissen U.; Schroth O.; Lange E.; Schmid W. A. 2008: Approaches to integrating indicators into 3D landscape visualisations and their benefits for participative planning situations. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 89(3). pp. 184-196.
Eplényi A. 2015: A táj mintázatai.(Patterns of landscape) 4D Tájépítészeti és Kertművészeti Folyóirat, Vol. 43(37). pp. 22-45.
Appleton K.; Lovett A.; Sünnenberg G.; Dockerty T. 2002: Rural landscape visualisation from GIS databases: a comparison of approaches, options and problems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 26(2–3). pp. 141-162.
Wissen U.; Schroth O.; Lange E.; Schmid W. A. 2008: Approaches to integrating indicators into 3D landscape visualisations and their benefits for participative planning situations. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 89(3). pp. 184-196.
Tress B.; Tress G. 2003: Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning—a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 64(3). pp. 161-178.
Dockerty T.; Lovett A.; Sünnenberg G.; Appleton K.; Parry M. 2005: Visualising the potential impacts of climate change on rural landscapes. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 29(3). pp. 297-320.
Soliva R.; Rønningen K.; Bella I.; Bezak P.; Cooper T.; Flø B. E.; Marty P.; Potter C. 2008: Envisioning upland futures: Stakeholder responses to scenarios for Europe's mountain landscapes. Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 24(1). pp. 56-71.
Jombach S.; Kollányi L.; Sallay Á.; Csemez A.; Egyed A.; Tatai Z. 2010. ViLaCOrDEM. Special processing of orthophotographs in landscape change visualisation, Buhmann/Pietsch/Kretzler (Eds.) Digital Landscape Architecture 2010 at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences Buhmann/Pietsch/Kretzler (Eds.) Digital Landscape Architecture 2010 at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences: Aschersleben, Németország.pp. 313-321.
Doyle S.; Dodge M.; Smith A. 1998: The potential of Web-based mapping and virtual reality technologies for modelling urban environments. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 22(2). pp. 137-155.
Appleton K.; Lovett A. 2005: GIS-based visualisation of development proposals: reactions from planning and related professionals. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 29(3). pp. 321-339.
Schroeder H.; Daniel T. C. 1981: Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science Vol. 27. pp. 71-80.
Kellomäki S.; Savolainen R. 1984: The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed in the field and the laboratory. Landscape Planning, Vol. 11(2). pp. 97-107.
Brown T. C.; Daniel T. C. 1986: Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science, Vol. 32. pp. 471-487.
Pukkala T.; Kellomäki S.; Mustonen E. 1988: Prediction of the amenity of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Vol. 3(1-4). pp. 533-544.
Jensen F. S. 1993: Landscape managers' and politicians' perception of the forest and landscape preferences of the population. Forest and Landscape Research Vol. 1. pp. 79-93.
Bell S. 2001: Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 54(1–4). pp. 201-211.
Tahvanainen L.; Tyrväinen L.; Ihalainen M.; Vuorela N.; Kolehmainen O. 2001: Forest management and public perceptions — visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 53(1–4). pp. 53-70.
Ribe R. G. 2005: Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 73(4). pp. 277-293.
Sheppard S. R. J.; Meitner M. 2005: Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 207(1–2). pp. 171-187.
Cook P. S.; Cable T. T. 1995: The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the Great Plains. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 32(1). pp. 63-69.
Appleton K.; Lovett A.; Sünnenberg G.; Dockerty T. 2002: Rural landscape visualisation from GIS databases: a comparison of approaches, options and problems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 26(2–3). pp. 141-162.
Appleton K.; Lovett A. 2003: GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: defining ‘sufficient’ realism for environmental decision-making. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 65(3). pp. 117-131.
van Zanten B. T.; Zasada I.; Koetse M. J.; Ungaro F.; Häfner K.; Verburg P. H. 2016: A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services, Vol. 17. pp. 87-98.
Clay G. R.; Daniel T. C. 2000: Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 49(1–2). pp. 1-13.
Madureira L.; Nunes L. C.; Borges J. G.; Falcão A. O. 2011: Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: A Portuguese case study. Journal of Forest Economics, Vol. 17(4). pp. 399-414.
Zhao J.; Luo P.; Wang R.; Cai Y. 2013: Correlations between aesthetic preferences of river and landscape characters. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, Vol. 21(2). pp. 123-132.
Wang R.; Zhao J.; Liu Z. 2016: Consensus in visual preferences: The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol. 20. pp. 210-217.
Tahvanainen L.; Tyrväinen L.; Ihalainen M.; Vuorela N.; Kolehmainen O. 2001: Forest management and public perceptions — visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 53(1–4). pp. 53-70.
Dramstad W. E.; Tveit M. S.; Fjellstad W. J.; Fry G. L. A. 2006: Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 78(4). pp. 465-474.
Mezősi G. 1991: Kísérletek a táj esztétikai értékének meghatározására. (Experiments to determine the aesthetic value of the landscape). Földrajzi Értesítő, Vol. XL(3-4.). pp. 251-264.
Kollányi L.; Jombach S. 2008: Vizuális esztétikai tájelemzések. In: Szabó, V.; Orosz, Z.; Nagy, R. (Eds.): Fazekas I IV. Magyar Földrajzi Konferencia, Vol. Debreceni Egyetem. Debrecen. pp. 230-236.
Horváth M.; Kiss A.; Czinege A. 2004: Tájesztétika és tájmenedzsment kapcsolata képeslapok példáján.(Relation of landscape aesthetics and landscape management based on postcards) In: Barton, G. é. G. D. (Ed.): A magyar földrajz kurrens eredményei. SZTE TTK Természeti Földrajzi és Geoinformatikai Tanszék. Szeged. pp. 1-14.
Karancsi Z. 2006: Természet és látvány : a tájkép értékelése a Medves-vidéken. (Nature and scenery: landscape assessment in the Medves region). Falu Város Régió, Vol. 3. pp. 63-67.
Karancsi Z. 2008: Tájértékelés: kérdőíves tájképminősítés-elemzés. (Landscape evaluation: scenic analysis with questionnaires) In: Brigitta, C. P. é. D.-B. (Ed.): Tájökológiai kutatások, III. Magyar Tájökológiai Konferencia Kötet. Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem Tájvédelmi
és Tájrehabilitációs Tanszék. Budapest. pp. 341-350.
LI-IEA. 1995: Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Landscape Institute - Institute of Environmental Asessment. E & F N Spon. London
IEMA. 2002: Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Taylor & Francis
Daniel T. C.; Boster R. S. 1976: Measuring landscape esthetics : the scenic beauty estimation method. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 66.
Ramos A.; Ramos F.; Cifuentes P.; Fernandez-Cañadas M. 1976: Visual landscape evaluation, a grid technique. Landscape Planning, Vol. 3(1). pp. 67-88.
Carlson A. A. 1984: On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty — A response to Ribe. Landscape Planning, Vol. 11(1). pp. 49-65.
MSZ 20372 2004: Természetvédelem. Tájak esztétikai minősítése. Nature protection. Aesthetec evaluation of landscapes. Vol. Magyar Szabványügyi Testület.
Ode Å.; Fry G.; Tveit M. S.; Messager P.; Miller D. 2009: Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90(1). pp. 375-383
Verburg P.; Soepboer W.; Limpiada R.; Espaldon M.; Sharifa M.; Veldkamp A. 2002: Land use change modelling at the regional scale: the CLUE-S model. Envionmental Management, Vol. 30. pp. 391–405.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Tirászi Ágnes, Konkoly-Gyuró Éva
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
A folyóirat Open Access (Gold). Cikkeire a Creative Commons 4.0 standard licenc alábbi típusa vonatkozik: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0. Ennek értelmében a mű szabadon másolható, terjeszthető, bemutatható és előadható, azonban nem használható fel kereskedelmi célokra (NC), továbbá nem módosítható és nem készíthető belőle átdolgozás, származékos mű (ND). A licenc alapján a szerző vagy a jogosult által meghatározott módon fel kell tüntetni a szerző nevét és a szerzői mű címét (BY).
