Assessment of landscape aesthetics—Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty

Abstract The assessment of cultural ecosystem services, in our case landscape aesthetics, is the most commonly investigated but least formalized issue in the scope of the ecosystem services concept. In contrast to ecological or economic aspects, the assessment of aesthetics cannot easily be based on quantitative information. Therefore, two different methodological approaches that assess landscape aesthetics either from an objective or a subjective point of view have been established in the past. This article presents in its first part an objective, landscape metrics-based assessment approach. We defined naturalness and landscape diversity as assessment criteria and selected Shannon's Diversity Index (SHDI), Shape Index (SHAPE) and Patch Density (PD) as indicators. We tested our approach for a set of nine different landscape types in a model region in Saxony, Germany. For validating the developed methodology, we carried out a survey with 153 participants in order to investigate their subjective preferences for the different landscape types. These preferences had to be expressed by rating the landscape types on a scale from 1 (very ugly) to 5 (very beautiful). The study was based on three different data sets, namely photographs of the landscape types, satellite images, and land cover maps. Statistical tests were applied (a) to investigate the impact of personal factors on the ratings, (b) to detect whether abstraction levels are suitable for preference studies, and (c) to compare the results of the objective approach (landscape metrics) and the subjective approach (visual assessment). Personal factors did not influence the visual assessment results significantly. We found the highest correlation of the landscape metrics-based assessment with the visual assessment results of the photographs. We conclude that the three landscape metrics might be applied to the monitoring of landscape aesthetics. An extended study with more participants might be useful to further investigate the reliability of our findings.

[1]  J. Bortz,et al.  Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler , 2006 .

[2]  Martin Volk,et al.  Pimp Your Landscape: A Tool for Qualitative Evaluation of the Effects of Regional Planning Measures on Ecosystem Services , 2010, Environmental management.

[3]  Christina von Haaren,et al.  Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies , 2011 .

[4]  Åsa Ode,et al.  Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character , 2006 .

[5]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective , 1989 .

[6]  Edward S. Neumann,et al.  Presentation mode and question format artifacts in visual assessment research , 1987 .

[7]  G. Daily,et al.  The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services , 2007 .

[8]  J. Bortz,et al.  Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation , 1995 .

[9]  M. Roth,et al.  Landscape preference study of agricultural landscapes in Germany , 2010, Tájökológiai Lapok.

[10]  Franz Makeschin,et al.  A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics , 2012 .

[11]  T. Blaschke.  The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustainable landscapes and natural capital , 2006 .

[12]  Marc Antrop,et al.  Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[13]  U. Walz,et al.  Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: Providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics , 2012 .

[14]  J. Lankhorst,et al.  Evaluating visible spatial diversity in the landscape , 1998 .

[15]  A. Lothian.  Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? , 1999 .

[16]  Gordon A. Bradley,et al.  Public perception as support for scenic quality regulation in a nationally treasured landscape , 2008 .

[17]  Sung-Kwon Hong,et al.  Relationship between landscape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas , 2008 .

[18]  E. Uuemaa,et al.  Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as landscape indicators: A review , 2013 .

[19]  Faisel Yunus,et al.  Statistics Using SPSS: An Integrative Approach, second edition , 2010 .

[20]  G. Fry,et al.  The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators , 2009 .

[21]  Beate Jessel,et al.  Elements, characteristics and character – Information functions of landscapes in terms of indicators , 2006 .

[22]  Birgit Kleinschmit,et al.  Contribution of landscape metrics to the assessment of scenic quality - the example of the landscape structure plan Havelland/Germany. , 2009 .

[23]  J. Lucio,et al.  Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes , 2006 .

[24]  F. Kienast,et al.  Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty – a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment , 1999, Landscape Ecology.

[25]  Franz Makeschin,et al.  Pimp Your Landscape - a Generic Approach for Integrating Regional Stakeholder Needs into Land Use Planning , 2010 .

[26]  Jordi Linares-Pellicer,et al.  A free and open source programming library for landscape metrics calculations , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[27]  F. Müller,et al.  Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics , 2012 .

[28]  Peter M. Howley,et al.  Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes , 2011 .

[29]  J. Palmer.  Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts , 2004 .

[30]  L. Owen.  Geological and landscape conservation , 1996 .

[31]  Klaus Hubacek,et al.  Research , part of a Special Feature on Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource Governance Competing Structure, Competing Views: The Role of Formal and Informal Social Structures in Shaping Stakeholder Perceptions , 2010 .

[32]  G. Fry,et al.  Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure , 2006 .

[33]  R. D. Groot,et al.  Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making , 2010 .

[34]  G. Walker,et al.  Ethnic/Racial and Gender Variations Among Meanings Given to, and Preferences for, the Natural Environment , 1999 .

[35]  Christopher Pettit,et al.  Identifying strengths and weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communication of future alternatives , 2011 .

[36]  Franz Makeschin,et al.  A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning , 2012 .

[37]  Wendy Fjellstad,et al.  Heterogeneity as a measure of spatial pattern for monitoring agricultural landscapes , 2001 .

[38]  T. Daniel.  Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century , 2001 .

[39]  Ervin H. Zube,et al.  Landscape perception: Research, application and theory , 1982 .

[40]  R. Ribe.  Is Scenic Beauty a Proxy for Acceptable Management? , 2002 .

[41]  Marcos Heil Costa,et al.  Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas , 2012 .

[42]  T. Purcell,et al.  Why do Preferences Differ between Scene Types? , 2001 .

[43]  E. Karjalainen.  Scenic preferences concerning clear‐fell areas in Finland , 1996 .

[44]  Isabel Augenstein.  Die Ästhetik der Landschaft , 2002 .

[45]  Franz Makeschin,et al.  How to better consider sectoral planning information in regional planning: example afforestation and forest conversion , 2012 .

[46]  O. Bastian,et al.  Landscape Diagnosis on Different Space and Time Scales – A Challenge for Landscape Planning , 2006, Landscape Ecology.

[47]  Gary Fry,et al.  Advantages of using different data sources in assessment of landscape change and its effect on visual scale , 2010 .

[48]  J. F. Coeterier,et al.  Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape , 1996 .

[49]  H. Wegner.  Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege , 1973 .

[50]  Gary Fry,et al.  Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory , 2008 .

[51]  J. Corraliza,et al.  Environmental aesthetics and psychological wellbeing: Relationships between preference judgements for urban landscapes and other relevant affective responses , 2000 .

[52]  R. J. Lamb,et al.  Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach , 1998 .

[53]  A. Kearney,et al.  The Effects of Viewer Attributes on Preference for Forest Scenes: Contributions of Attitudes, Knowledge, Demographic Factors, and Stakeholder Group Membership , 2011 .

[54]  Sharon L. Weinberg,et al.  Statistics Using IBM SPSS: An Integrative Approach , 2008 .

[55]  G. Haase.  Medium scale landscape classification in the German Democratic Republic , 1989, Landscape Ecology.

[56]  M. Arriaza,et al.  Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes , 2004 .

[57]  Gabriele Zanetto,et al.  The impact of agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: The role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process , 2003 .

[58]  M. Rounsevell,et al.  The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change , 2006 .

[59]  K. McGarigal,et al.  FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. , 1995 .

[60]  Melania D'angelosante.  European Landscape Convention , 2013 .

[61]  G. Fry,et al.  Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.