Visual land use compatibility as a significant contributor to visual resource quality

In this paper an alternative to landscape complexity as a measure of visual landscape quality is presented. This alternative is called visual land use compatibility and is defined as the relationship between adjacent land uses. The research described is part of an interdisciplinary project at the University of Massachusetts called the Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model (METLAND). The Paper discusses man's concern for the relationships between land uses, tracing that concern through history to the present. A procedure that was designed to measure perceptions of the visual aspects of these land use relationships is described. The paper concludes that it appears to be valid to extend the concept of “misfits” into a more general model of both desirable and undesirable aspects of land use relationships and calls for further research to develop that model.

[1]  P Bakan,et al.  Complexity Judgments of Photographs and Looking Time , 1965, Perceptual and motor skills.

[2]  George B. Tobey,et al.  A history of landscape architecture: the relationship of people to environment , 1973 .

[3]  H. Day.  Evaluations of subjective complexity, pleasingness and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity , 1967 .

[4]  L. Mumford.  The City in History , 1961 .

[5]  Harry Munsinger,et al.  Uncertainty, structure, and preference. , 1964 .

[6]  Daniel R. Mandelker,et al.  The Zoning Dilemma , 1971 .

[7]  Julius Gy. Fabos.  An analysis of environmental quality ranking systems , 1971 .

[8]  Paul D. Spreiregen,et al.  Urban design, the architecture of towns and cities , 1965 .

[9]  R F TERWILLIGER,et al.  Pattern Complexity and Affective Arousal , 1963, Perceptual and motor skills.

[10]  Ervin H. Zube,et al.  Landscapes: Selected Writings of J.B. Jackson , 1970 .

[11]  Fred G. Evenden,et al.  Wilderness and the American Mind , 1968 .

[12]  P. Vitz.  Preference for different amounts of visual complexity. , 1966, Behavioral science.

[13]  Joachim F. Wohlwill,et al.  Amount of stimulus exploration and preference as differential functions of stimulus complexity , 1968 .

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

[15]  D. Berlyne,et al.  COMPLEXITY AND INCONGRUITY VARIABLES AS DETERMINANTS OF EXPLORATORY CHOICE AND EVALUATIVE RATINGS. , 1963, Canadian journal of psychology.