Visual preferences for physical attributes of mining and post-mining landscapes with respect to the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents

Our study presents a method for assessing the visual quality of post-mining landscapes, empowering the residents of these areas, or a wider range of experts, to take part in the design of new landscapes. The goal of this study was to evaluate respondents’ visual perception of selected relevant physical attributes of mining and post-mining landscapes and to determine the influence of certain sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents on their visual preferences. Based on a spatial image analysis of ground photographs of landscapes included in a questionnaire determining the respondents’ visual preferences, we found that active, non-reclaimed mines contributed fundamentally to a negative evaluation of whole landscape scenes. Built-up areas, another form of human impact on the landscape, did not significantly lower the respondents’ ratings for the scenes. The study confirmed a major positive influence of reclamations in post-mining areas, including those in early successional stages. This effect was increased in reclamations containing mature woody communities. The most important sociodemographic factor proved to be the professional field or study focus of the respondents, which significantly influenced their evaluation of most of the selected physical attributes of the landscape. Visual preferences were also significantly affected by the respondents’ gender and education.

[1]  K. Fujita.  What You See is Different from What I See: Species Differences in Visual Perception , 2008 .

[2]  J. F. Coeterier,et al.  GROUP DIFFERENCES IN THE AESTHETIC EVALUATION OF NATURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: A MULTILEVEL APPROACH , 1998 .

[3]  E. Strumse.  DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN THE VISUAL PREFERENCES FOR AGRARIAN LANDSCAPES IN WESTERN NORWAY , 1996 .

[4]  A. Williams,et al.  Video panorama assessment of beach landscape aesthetics on the coast of Wales , 1999 .

[5]  John W. Simpson.  Opportunities for visual resource management in the Southern Appalachian Coal Basin , 1979 .

[6]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

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

[8]  Valentina Dentoni,et al.  Visibility of surface mining and impact perception , 2005 .

[9]  Elisabeth Conrad,et al.  Understanding public perceptions of landscape: A case study from Gozo, Malta , 2011 .

[10]  Ivana Kaöparová.  Restoration of visual values in a post-mining lands cape , 2008 .

[11]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Realism and selectivity in data-driven visualisations: A process for developing viewer-oriented landscape surrogates , 2007 .

[12]  David Pitt,et al.  Perceptions and Measurements of Scenic Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley , 1974 .

[13]  J. Jacoby,et al.  Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert Scale Items? Study I: Reliability and Validity , 1971 .

[14]  W. Groot,et al.  Visions of nature. A scientific exploration of people's explicit philosophies regarding nature in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom , 2006 .

[15]  P. Dearden.  Factors influencing landscape preferences: An empirical investigation , 1984 .

[16]  James F. Palmer,et al.  Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments , 2001 .

[17]  Petra Lindemann-Matthies,et al.  Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: the impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. , 2010 .

[18]  K. Sarkar,et al.  Impact of mining and related activities on physical and cultural environment of Singrauli Coalfield — A case study through application of remote sensing techniques , 1994 .

[19]  Petr Sklenicka,et al.  Visual Perception of Habitats Adopted for Post-Mining Landscape Rehabilitation , 2010, Environmental management.

[20]  Edmund C. Penning-Rowsell,et al.  A public preference evaluation of landscape quality , 1982 .

[21]  S. Koole,et al.  New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes , 2006 .

[22]  M. Antrop,et al.  The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference , 2010 .

[23]  Robert D. Brown,et al.  Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites , 2002 .

[24]  Michael Roth,et al.  Validating the use of internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment : An empirical study from Germany , 2006 .

[25]  G. J. Buhyoff,et al.  Extension of visual quality models for urban forests , 1986 .

[26]  E. Lyons.  Demographic Correlates of Landscape Preference , 1983 .

[27]  Svoboda,et al.  Non-productive principles of landscape rehabilitation after long-term opencast mining in north-west Bohemia , 2004 .

[28]  K. Vizayakumar,et al.  Environmental impact analysis of a coalfield , 1992 .

[29]  Greg Hancock,et al.  The design of post‐mining landscapes using geomorphic principles , 2003 .

[30]  E. Strumse.  Perceptual dimensions in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western norway , 1994 .

[32]  A. Colman,et al.  Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. , 2000, Acta psychologica.

[33]  Range Experiment Station,et al.  Proceedings of our national landscape : a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource , 1979 .

[34]  M. E. Patterson,et al.  Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas , 1994 .

[35]  A. Purcell,et al.  Preference or preferences for landscape , 1994 .

[36]  F. Ayuga,et al.  A contribution to the assessment of scenic quality of landscapes based on preferences expressed by the public , 2009 .

[37]  Hasan Yilmaz,et al.  Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey) , 2008, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[38]  Mary W. Downton,et al.  Judgments of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment , 1984 .

[39]  L. Tyrväinen,et al.  Forest management and public perceptions — visual versus verbal information , 2001 .

[40]  V. Zuska.  Estetika : úvod do současnosti tradiční disciplíny , 2001 .

[41]  A. Misgav.  Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. , 2000 .

[42]  F. L. Newby.  Understanding the visual resource , 1971 .

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

[44]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[46]  V. Angileri,et al.  The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity , 1993 .

[47]  J. R Wherrett.  Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research , 1999 .

[48]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The analysis of perception via preference: A strategy for studying how the environment is experienced , 1985 .

[49]  Ulf-Dietrich Reips.  Standards for Internet-based experimenting. , 2002, Experimental psychology.

[50]  Kyu Shik Oh,et al.  A perceptual evaluation of computer-based landscape simulations , 1994 .

[51]  J. L. Fridley,et al.  The validity of computer-generated graphic images of forest landscape , 1995 .

[52]  R. Ulrich.  Human responses to vegetation and landscapes , 1986 .

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

[54]  Ian D. Bishop.  Testing perceived landscape colour difference using the Internet , 1997 .

[55]  Robert M. Itami,et al.  Landscape Principles Study: Procedures for Landscape Assessment and Management — Australia , 1982, Landscape Journal.

[56]  Ke-Tsung Han.  Responses to Six Major Terrestrial Biomes in Terms of Scenic Beauty, Preference, and Restorativeness , 2007 .

[57]  S. Navrud,et al.  Are Internet Surveys an Alternative to Face-to Face Interviews in Contingent Valuation? , 2011 .

[58]  Michael J. Crawley,et al.  The R book , 2022 .

[59]  D. Martinez,et al.  Suburban Areas in Developing Countries and Their Relationship to Groundwater Pollution: A Case Study of Mar del Plata, Argentina , 1998, Environmental management.

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

[61]  Tetsuro Matsuzawa,et al.  Primate Origins of Human Cognition and Behavior , 2001, Springer Japan.

[62]  The influence of the socio-economic background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation , 1986 .

[63]  Randy J. Virden,et al.  A comparison study of wilderness users and nonusers: implications for managers and policymakers. , 1990 .

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

[65]  C. Vlek,et al.  Images of nature, environmental values and landscape preference: exploring their interrelationships , 2006 .

[66]  Franz Höchtl,et al.  "Wilderness": what it means when it becomes a reality - a case study from the southwestern Alps. , 2005 .

[67]  R. Gimblett,et al.  Comparing live experience with pictures in articulating landscape preference , 1992 .