Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents' characteristics

被引:109
|
作者
Kalivoda, Ondrej [1 ]
Vojar, Jiri [1 ]
Skrivanova, Zuzana [1 ]
Zahradnik, Daniel [2 ]
机构
[1] Czech Univ Life Sci Prague, Fac Environm Sci, CZ-16521 Prague, Czech Republic
[2] Czech Univ Life Sci Prague, Fac Forestry & Wood Sci, CZ-16521 Prague, Czech Republic
关键词
Aesthetic preferences; Judgment consensus; Judgment variance; Landscape perception; Landscape scenery protection; Visual aesthetic assessment; AGRARIAN LANDSCAPES; SCENIC BEAUTY; PERCEPTION; ATTRIBUTES; INDICATORS; VALIDITY; SCALE;
D O I
10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.009
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Landscape's visual aesthetic quality (VAQ) has been widely regarded as a valuable resource worthy of protection. Although great effort has been devoted to determining the factors driving aesthetic preferences, public consensus in judgments has been neglected in the vast majority of such studies. Therefore, the aim of our study was to analyze three main possible sources of judgment variance: landscape VAQ landscape type, and variability among respondents. Based upon an extensive perception-based investigation including more than 400 hikers as respondents, we found that variance in respondents' judgments differed significantly among assessed landscape scenes. We discovered a significant difference in judgment variances within each investigated respondent characteristic (gender, age, education level, occupational classification, and respondent's type of residence). Judgment variance was at the same time affected by landscape VAQ itself the higher the VAQ the better the consensus. While differences caused by characteristics indicate subjectivity of aesthetic values, the knowledge that people better find consensus for positively perceived landscapes provides a cogent argument for legal protection of valuable landscape scenes. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:36 / 44
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Visual landscape quality in landscape planning: Examples of Kars and Ardahan cities in Turkey
    Uzun, Osman
    Muderrisoglu, Haldun
    AFRICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 2011, 6 (06): : 1627 - 1638
  • [32] Public Visual Preference for Dead Wood in Different Types of Landscape
    Qiu, Ling
    Yu, Na
    Gao, Yanan
    Zhang, Tian
    Gao, Tian
    FORESTS, 2021, 12 (01): : 1 - 13
  • [33] Assessing the Visual Aesthetic Quality of Vegetation Landscape in Urban Green Space from a Visitor's Perspective
    Du, Hongyu
    Jiang, Hong
    Song, Xuejun
    Zhan, Difu
    Bao, Zhiyi
    JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, 2016, 142 (03)
  • [34] An evaluation of visual aesthetic quality of pedestrian pathways based on ecological network corridor within campus landscape
    Rahmandari, A. V.
    Gunawan, A.
    Mugnisjah, W. Q.
    3RD INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM FOR SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT (ISSLD 2017), 2018, 179
  • [35] Effects of Visual Indicators on Landscape Preferences
    Zhao, Jingwei
    Wang, Ronghua
    Cai, Yongli
    Luo, Pingjia
    JOURNAL OF URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, 2013, 139 (01) : 70 - 78
  • [36] Visual quality assesment in recreational and touristic landscape
    Adiguzel, Elif
    Batman, Zeynep Pirselimoglu
    ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2024,
  • [37] Landscape growth and aesthetic quality of coleus managed with irrigation deficits
    Scheiber, Sloane M.
    Beeson, Richard C.
    HORTSCIENCE, 2006, 41 (04) : 1058 - 1058
  • [38] Landscape growth and aesthetic quality of coleus managed with irrigation deficits
    Scheiber, S. M.
    Beeson, Richard C., Jr.
    HORTTECHNOLOGY, 2007, 17 (04) : 561 - 566
  • [39] Social media and deep learning capture the aesthetic quality of the landscape
    Havinga, Ilan
    Marcos, Diego
    Bogaart, Patrick W.
    Hein, Lars
    Tuia, Devis
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2021, 11 (01)
  • [40] Effects of particulate air pollution on visual aesthetic preference
    Zhao, Jingwei
    Huang, Yidan
    Tang, Ting
    Li, Yange
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-URBAN DESIGN AND PLANNING, 2020, 173 (03) : 87 - 95