Landscape Planning, 5 (1978) 45-62

Q Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

PHYSIOGNOMIC

LANDSCAPE

45

MAPPING IN THE NETHERLANDS

A.A. DE VEER and P.A. BURROUGH

Netherlands Soil Survey Institute, Wugen~ngen (The ~ether~unds~
(Received 6 June 1977)

ABSTRACT
De Veer, A.A. and Burrough, P.A., 1978. Physiognomic
Netherlands. Landscape Plann., 5: 45-62.

landscape mapping in The

Although physiognomic landscape studies have been used for 10 years by planners in
The Netherlands, there have been few comparisons of the various methodologies. Also,
publication of the methods in English has been rare. A brief description of the most
important visible aspects (physiognomy) of Dutch landscapes is followed by a review of
techniques used from 1966-1976
for classifying and mapping landscapes for planning
purposes, Three main approaches have been recognized - compartment; breadth of
view; and grid cell. The findings of a recent study comparing the results and techniques
of different Dutch landscape classification methods are summarized and discussed in the
light of the stated requirements of users of landscape data. As no single extant technique
satisfies all the users requirements, future developments in landscape mapping should
adopt a more flexible approach. Recent experience in using computer-assisted mapping
methods in soil science and geology suggests that these techniques can be adapted profitably to classify and map landscapes from elementary data according to users needs.

INTRODUCTION

In The Netherlands, physical planning studies consider many aspects of

the environment.
Not only are geological, soil, vegetation and ecological data
used, but recent planning studies at all levels have required information
about the visible aspects or physiognomy
of the landscape. During the last 10
years, several methods of physiognomic landscape mapping have been developed, but the resulting landscape maps, produced at various scales and according to different legends, are difficult to compare and evaluate. In December
197 5, the National Physical Planning Agency (Rij ksplanologische Dienst)
asked the Physiognomic Landscape Research Division of The Netherlands
Soil Survey Institute (Stichting voor Bodemkartering)
to study existing Dutch
methods of physiognomic
landscape survey and to recommend a national
approach to landscape inventor.
As the results of the study (De Veer et al., 1977b) and most discussions of
Netherl~ds
landscape mapping have been published in Dutch, this article

46

presents a review in English of Dutch physiognomic

landscape mapping and
discusses the results and conclusions of recent investigations.
The following
section describes the main types of Dutch landscapes to give an idea of the
conditions prevailing in this country.
DEVELOPMENT

OF DUTCH LANDSCAPES

Dutch landscapes are the product of a long and frequently bitter struggle
between people and their environment
(Lambert,
1971). Two broad landscape regions can be differentiated.
The flat, northwestern
half of the country, lying mainly below sea level,
consists of Holocene peat and clay deposits. A dune belt along the North Sea
coast protects these areas, but gaps in the dunes and high river-water levels
inland call for an extensive system of protecting dykes and drainage. In these
areas, the predominant
grassland and arable land of the polders contrasts
strongly with the dense urban concentrations
of the main cities that have
developed along the major water courses. As the main parcel boundaries on
the polders are ditches rather than hedges, the non-urban landscapes in the
northwest are very open.
The southeastern
half of the country is formed mainly from Pleistocene
glacial ridges and wind-blown coversands. The low to undulating relief and
the variations in soil fertility have induced a highly differentiated
land-use
system that includes mixed farming and heath and forest areas. In earlier
times the fields were surrounded by dense hedges to keep cattle and wild
animals from the arable land, causing very closed landscape types to develop.
The present landscapes of heath and forests owe much to the old agricultural
system. Removing sods from the heaths for mixing with farmyard manure
and overgrazing by sheep allowed severe erosion of the poor coversand soil.
This was first checked by oak plantation around small settlements,
and in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries by concerted programmes of tree planting,
predominantly
pines.
The Dutch landscapes are still evolving. The open landscapes in the northwest were extended greatly by the recent IJsselmeer polder reclamations
and
were also significantly
affected by the major floods of 1953 when 1650 km*
were inundated (Huson and Verstappen,
196.8).
Many landscape changes have resulted from the pressures of a larger, more
mobile and more demanding populatiol~. Owing to increased population
after the second World War, much agricultural land has been changed into
urban or sub-urban sprawl; increased mobility has required new roads and
motorways.
Both have reduced considerably
the area of nonurban land, which
also has been broken into smaller units. In addition, the high-rise developments on the edge of urban areas, particularly in the large open landscapes in
the west of the country, have increased the visible impact of urbanization
(Nicolai, 1971; Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, 1976).
At present, two major laws govern land use reallocation.
The older law

47

concerning reallottment
(ruilverkaveling)
allows agricultural economic improvements to be made by revising the patterns of drainage, field size, land
tenure and settlement, all of which have profound effects on the visible and
ecological qualities of the landscape. The second, the Physical Planning Bill,
enacted in 1962 (Brussaard, undated), regulates land use designation at local,
regional and national levels. One of the reasons for its introduction
was the
increasing demands on a~icultur~
lands to serve multiple uses such as nature
conservation or recreation and their consequent effects on the landscape.
For developments
planned under either law, planners are requesting more
landscape data to guide their decisions.
LANDSCAPE

AND LANDSCAPE

MAPPING

IN RELATION

TO PLANNING

The term landscape

The technical meaning of landschap in Dutch is broader than that of

the English word landscape. Although in everyday speech l~dschap
means
scenery, the scientific definition
a part of the earths surface that is composed of a complex of interrelations
that
originate from the interaction
of rocks, water, air, plants, animals and people, and
that in its external manifestation
forms a discernible whole (Zonneveld
et al., 1975)

embraces much more than the English understanding

of landscape (e.g., as
given by Dunn, 1974). A better translation of landschap therefore would
be environment,
a term that includes ecological, genetic and visual aspects
together,
According to Weir (1976), the Dutch term visueel landschap is comparable to the English understanding
of landscape. Comparable terms used
by the Dutch for visueel landschap are landschapsfysiognomie
or landschapsbeeld. Landschapsfysiognomie
involves more, however, than just the
structure or arrangement of the visible landscape, it includes a detailed consideration of the visible properties of all the features present.
Landscape

mapping

in The Netherlands

and abroad

The aims of Dutch landscape mapping are similar to those of landscape

evaluation in other countries. These are to record and classify the landscape
in order to identify rare or susceptible sites, to investigate interrelations,
to
assess the impact of development
and to assist suitability evaluation for
recreation or other development
(cf. Land Use Consultants, 1971). Generally
speaking, landscape survey is used as a planning tool.
Although the Dutch have been familiar with landscape evaluation techniques used elsewhere, they now seem to follow more or less their own way.
This is partly due to the fact that the Dutch have concentrated
on describing
landscapes rather than proceeding directly to evaluation without prior

48

mapping (e.g., along the lines of some methods described by Linton, 1968;
Jacobs and Way, 1969; Kiemstedt,
1969; Steinitz et al., 1969; Dunn, 1974).
A more fundamental reason, however, may be the predominantly
flat, agricultural character of the Dutch landscape, which contrasts so strongly with
the urbanized land. Differences
in landscape character depend strongly on
variations in space, and space is circumscribed
by elements such as lines
of trees, dykes or buildings. These elements form dominant criteria for landscape classification.
In other countries, differences in relief, outlook and landform play much greater roles in the visible landscape than in The Netherlanc!s.
Consequently,
classifications
adopted in other countries frequently make
more use of ecological or integrated survey techniques than is possible in
The Netherlands (e.g., Klink, 1966; Haase, 1967; Steinitz et al., 1969; Leser,
1976). Most Dutch physiognomic
landscape mapping methods developed so
far stop short of actual aesthetic evaluation and concentrate
first on understanding the spatial character and content of the landscapes.

First Dutch methods

of landscape mapping

All the Dutch landscape mapping methods discussed in this paper concentrate on describing and classifying the physiognomy.
There have been other,
national, surveys covering various other aspects of the environment;
for
example, soil and vegetation relations (Kalkhoven et al., 1976), or maps
showing the role of people in landscape building by depicting parcellation,
historical sites and land-use patterns (Ministerie van CRM, 1977). Both these
surveys have adopted a standard approach to mapping the whole country.
However, in physiognomic
landscape survey, several techniques have been
developed by geographers and landscape architects to meet a wide range of
planning problems on different scales.
The first attempt to classify the Dutch landscape in physiognomic
terms
was a small scale map (1:500
000) called The landscape of The Netherlands
and bordering regions (Rijksplanologische
Dienst, 1966). This map divided
the agricultural land into abstract classes defined as complexes of open spaces.
Open landscapes were defined as those where both the length and breadth of
spaces with unrestricted
vision exceeded 1500 m. For half-open landscapes,
the critical values were 1500 m and 500 m, respectively;
closed landscapes
comprised spaces where both dimensions were less than 500 m. One aim of
the map was to show that the Rand&ad Holland - the urbanized horseshoe
in the west of the country through Utrecht, Amsterdam, Haarlem, Den Haag,
Rotterdam
and Dordrecht - has an open green heart that should be preserved.
This map was the forerunner of several different approaches to physiognomic landscape mapping (De Veer, 1977). However, after several years
there was more diversity than concensus about the meaning of the visible
landscape and how it should be mapped, so more research was recommended
(Rijksplanologische
Dienst, 1974). The Netherlands Soil Survey Institute was
asked to compare the various Dutch landscape mapping methodologies
and

49

to suggest how a national approach to landscape mapping for planning

applications could be formula~d.
The State Institute for Forestry and Landscape Planning (de Dorschkamp)
was asked to prepare a complementary
study on how people perceive and appreciate landscapes (Van der Poel, 1976).
Coeterier (1977) presents some early results.
CURRENT DUTCH METHODS OF LANDSCAPE MAPPING

All methods belong to one of three main approaches. An exception is the

special purpose method of ~a~leveld
and De Lange (1972). The three approaches differ most in their recognition of space, but resemble each other
more closely in the attention paid to natural or artificial elements in space,
such as lines of trees, forests, windmills, dykes and urban areas.
In the first approach, the landscape is considered to be a set of concave
compartments
that can be characterized
by size or shape, type of border and
content (compartment
methods). The second is based on measurements
of
the breadth of view and the peripheral elements that may affect it (breadth
of view method). The third subdivides the landscape into square grid cells
and then classifies them in terms of density and complexity
(grid methods).
All methods consider masses (e.g., three-dimensional
blocks of forest, urban
or industrial areas) separately from spaces, except in terms of the visible
influence of the mass on the space. In practice, an individual method may not
conform wholly to one of these broad classes but may adopt different aspects
at various stages.
Table I lists the eight methods of landscape mapping used to date, together
with the authors and the main type of approach.
TABLE I
Netherlands methods of landscape mapping
Method
la
lb
1C
Id
2
3a
3b
4

Author(s)

Type of method

Schuurmans and Van Schie (1968)

Vrij et al. (1976)
Smit (1976)
De Veer et al. (1977a)
Van der Ham et al. (1970)
Kerkstra (1974)
Koster and De Veer (1972)
Maarleveld and De Lange (1972)
-_-l_-~

(1) Compartment

Compartment
Compartment
Compartment
Compartment
Breadth of view
Grid and breadth of view
Grid and compartment
Special purpose
.- .-...~_.

-__

methods

The compartment
approach has been used most frequently.
A space is
defined as an area of the earths surface bordered by line or mass elements
higher than the eye level of a standing observer within which all points are

50

mutually visible. By this definition visible spaces are necessarily concave. In

practice, this means that contiguous open areas comprising two or more concave units must be separated into discrete spatial entities (Fig.1).
Relief complicates the delineation of compartments.
But areas with undulations greater than 1.5 m (eyelevel) and less than the height of the surrounding
border elements can be classified as spatial complexes (Fig.2). On the upper
slopes of hills (rare in The Netherlands) the higher parts of mapped spaces
can be annotated with outlook (Fig.3).
The first map of Dutch landscapes used a compartmental
classification
(Rijksplanologische
Dienst, 1966). Schuurmans and Van Schie (1968) ex-

(_r-,=
tra~lsition

twn compartnlents

l---J

Fig.1. (Top) Edge concavity influences number of compartments

(De Veer et

\I\

al., 1977a).

Fig.2 (Centre) Complex of spatial types (a, b, c) observable in areas of undulating relief
(De Veer et al., 1977a).
Fig.3. (Bottom)

Compartment

of which higher part offers outlook.

51

tended and refined its principles into Method la, listed in Table I. Their aim
was to display differences in the size of space over large parts of the country.
In Method la, spaces were classified according to size (length and breadth
greater or less than critical values of 500 or 1500 m), relief and land use.
Finally, landscape types were translated into recreation suitability.
Vrij (Method lb; 1976) used the compartment
concept with critical values
for length and breadth of 500 and 1400 m in order to construct a basic
pattern of natural landscape units. The delineation of these relies more on
map and aerial photo interpretation
than on recognition of bounding elements
in the field. The landscape units formed the basis for several interpretative
maps. One of these was based on the degree of visual differentiation
within
the units estimated from the types of bordering elements, relief and land use.
Vrijs maps have possible applications in local and regional planning.
Smits approach (Method lc; 1976), already familiar to British landscape
scientists through the review given by Land Use Consultants (1971), is a
variation of the compartment
model. His criterion for classifying space was
based on whether a circle with a diameter of more than 2000 m, between
500 and 2000 m, or less than 500 m could be placed over a map of the
terrain without covering lines of trees or built up elements. The spaces were
subdivided on the basis of the degree of their enclosure by elements higher
than eye level. The units were also characterized
in terms of relief, land use,
settlement type, parcellation, tree species and presence of surface water.
Smit is the only worker to attempt a detailed landscape inventory of the
whole of The Netherlands.
De Veer et al. (Method Id; 1977a) have classified compartments
according
to their area (common class limits 25 and 100 ha). Where compartment
edges
varied greatly in transparency
this attribute was also used for classification,
Other attributes used have been relief, land use and structure (parcellation
and forest path pattern), and type of trees and building elements. The latter
were used for edge classification in space and for content classification in
mass. Maps made according to Method Id have been applied in local and
regional planning (e.g., extension of built-up areas and reallottment
schemes).
Fig.6 is an example of a landscape classification map produced by Method Id.
(2) Breadth of view method
The exponents of this method have been Van der Ham et al. (Method 2;
1970). Its main tenet is that the effectiveness with which an element limits a
view depends on its distance from the observer. Objects farther than 1200 m
away are normally considered not to delimit the space perceived, because the
fine details can no longer be discerned by the naked eye. In practice, the
critical distance varies from approximately
1000 to 1300 m depending on
the colour, contrast and extent of the objects seen, and the meteorological
conditions. Objects further than the critical distance are called extraocular.
A further, more arbitrary, critical distance of 500 m has been used to divide

52

objects lying within 500-1200

m (ocular) from those lying within 500 m
(intraocular).
Fig.4 shows how observation points are classified according to the total
angles of view to extraocular,
ocular and intraocular objects. Approximately
four sites per km are visited. Then areas with similarly classified points are
combined into mapping units (Fig.7). These mapping units may be further
subdivided according to the types of elements forming the boundaries of the

5
rl

r2
73

i6
<500m
500~1200m
U200m

Fig.4. Classification
(1) Superocular
(2) Extraocular
(3) Ocular
(4) Intraocular
(5) Exocular
(6) Inocular
SP = arc of single

of observation
points according
to Van
angle of view to r3 (a) > 180.
angle of view to r3 (a) > 60 SP; > 100
angle of view to r2 (a) > 60 SP or MP.
angle of view within r3 (b) > 300.
angle of view to r3 (a) < 60 SP; < 100
rl (b) < 240.
-angle
of view to r3 (a) < 60 SP; < 100
rl (b) > 240.
panorama;
MP = summed arcs of multiple
-

der Ham et al., 1970

(modified).

MP.

MP; and angle of view within

MP; and angle of view within
panoramas.

53

land lots, the relief (of which the higher elements are considered as spacedelimiting elements) and the presence of visible influences of hills, urbanization or main roads. Masses such as woods, urban or industrial areas are mapped
separately.
Maps made according to Method 2 have been published in different reports
of the National Physical Planning Agency (Rijksplanologische
Dienst). Interpretation systems have been developed to evaluate landscape as a natural
resource and to estimate its suitability for recreation and dwelling.
(3) Grid landscape surveys
In Method 3a (Kerkstra, 1974), square grid cells of 125 X 125 m were
classified according to several principles (e.g., visual complexity, variation in
complexity,
and seasonal variation). The classification of visual complexity
is based on measurements taken mainly from topographic and other maps of
the amount of mass, number of buildings and length of different tree-line
elements per cell (Fig.8). Cell data are combined for further analysis including mapping zones of breadth of view. This method has been applied to
local planning problems, for example, for suggesting new residential areas.
Koster and De Veer (Method 3b; 1972) have used much larger cells of
1000 X 1000 m. Every landscape element within the cell is assigned a point
value depending on its height and extent. The degree of differentiation
(i.e.,
complexity),
natural or artificial character and/or spatial type are determined
from the elements present in the cell and from the values assigned. The method
was used in a study for predicting alterations in landscape physiognomy
resulting from industrial activities along the Belgian-Dutch border.
Coeterier and Dijkstra (1976) have also used a grid approach to measure
changes in landscape caused by reallottment
schemes. Their survey covered
two aspects - first, a measure of the changes in hedgerow density, and second,
public reaction to the landscape alterations.
(4) Special purpose

method

The pragmatic method used by Maarleveld and De Lange (Method 4; 1972)

in their study of the flood plains of the Rhine, Waal, Maas and IJssel does not
readily fit into one of the above classes. Their major landscape units were
bounded by the stream, the parallel winter dyke and transverse features such
as main roads and narrow floodplain necks between river and dyke. These
units were then described according to relief, land use and density of trees
and hedges. For each river a landscape evaluation in four classes was made in
order to inform planning authorities about conservation needs and restrictions for development.

54

THE SUITABILITY
OF DUTCH PHYSIOGNOMIC
LANDSCAPE
MAPPING
NIQUES FOR A NATIONAL
LANDSCAPE
MAPPING PROGRAMME

TECH-

The Netherlands Soil Survey Institute compared the methods of landscape

mapping described above in order to find out if one method, or a combination, could provide the basis for a national approach to landscape inventory.
It was conceived that a national approach to landscape inventory should be
able to provide information
useful for all levels of planning from State to
Local.
The investigation fell into two parts. The first was a comparison of the
mapping methods in terms of technical quality and information
content. The
second was a survey of potential users of physiognomic
landscape data at all
planning levels, both public and private, to determine the users requirements.
Foreign methods were not considered, because most of them do not concentrate on landscape physiognomy
(see Landscape mapping in The Netherlands
and abroad, above).

Comparison

of the mapping methods

The eight methods were analysed as closely as possible by examining all

the available literature and by consulting the authors. In order to compare

Fig.5. Topography
of part of the test area near Rhenen (Provinces of Utrecht and Gelderland, The Netherlands).
Scale 1:50 000. The area displayed in Figs 6, 7 and 8 is marked.

55

the methods in the field, a suitable test area of 60 km* was chosen near the
town of Rhenen in the Provinces of Gelderland and Utrecht (Fig.5). This
area was chosen for its wide variety of landscapes which include low forested
hills, large open areas, the flood plain of the Neder Rijn, smaller, complex
field patterns and urban influences.
All except Method la were mapped at a common field scale of 1:25 000;
the map for Method la was taken from the published map of the Geldersche
Vallei that covers the study area. Methods lb, lc, Id and 2 were mapped
over the whole study area, but Methods 3a and b (grid mapping techniques),
were mapped only over the 6 km* tract shown in Fig.5. Method 4 was confined to the flood plain of the Rhine. Figs 6, 7 and 8 show details of Methods
Id, 2 and 3a over the 6 km2 strip; all maps are reproduced in full in De Veer
et al. (197713).
The eight methods were compared on 19 points ranging from the number
of areas already mapped according to the method, the survey scales employed,
to the costs and procedures of data gathering, the flexibility of the approach,
the legibility of the maps and their declared application possibilities. Table II
presents some of these data concerning the extent of use, map scales, mode
of presentation and costs. Several methods, lc, Id, 2 and 4 presented the
landscape typology in a single map; others, notably Methods lb and 3a, used
several maps to present all their classifications. A wide range of scales has
been used, both between and within methods. Survey costs increased with

Fig.6.
Spaces

Landscape

classification

according

edge transparency

to Method

Size of space
Large
(>lOO

Open-edge

> 7 5% transparent

Half-open-edge
Enclosed-edge
Associations

25-75%

transparent

< 25% transparent

not occur

in this area.

ha)

Medium
(25-100

ha)

Small
(< 25 ha)

2*

3*

6*

of space-mass

Mass: transparent
Mass: transparent
and non-transparent
Mass: non-transparent
*Does

Id (De Veer et al.. 1977a).

Mass
10*
11
12

Transparent
Transparent
and non-transparent
Non-transparent

13*
14
15*

56

Fig.7.

Landscape

classification

according

to Method

2 (Van

der Ham et al., 1970).

Space
Classification
observation

Map

code

Very

of
points

Summed

wide view

Wide view

View bounded,
far outlooks

Bounded

Closely bounded view

but with far outlooks

Closely

Other
fSB

landscape

but with

view

view

7 = periphery

= angle of view within

of objects

in viewing-circle

(degrees)

1200 m
Extraocular

500-l
200 m
Ocular

500 m
Intraocular

>180

<180

<180

>60 SBf or
100-180

<180

<180

5-60
5-100

.240

<120

SBf

<5

bounded
types:

angles

5-60
5-100

SBf

>300

<60

<120

>240

<60

>300

<5
area;

8 = forest.

a single arc. *Does

not occur

in this area.

Fig.8. Landscape
classification
according
to Method 3a (Kerkstra,
1974).
Visual
is ranked from 1 (small) to 5 (large). (Type 5 does not occur in this area.)

complexity

map scale, the ratio of field to office work and with the amount of data
collected. Method Id, which requires a complete field survey of the landscape
elements, was most expensive while the map produced for the whole country
by analysis of topographic and other maps (Method lc) was cheapest.
Table III compares the methods in terms of the dominant landscape
attributes used for classification. Although Method lc appears to have the
most comprehensive
cover of concrete landscape attributes, its complex and

*s 1

= Dfl4.20.

--~

Sehuurmans and Van Schie (1963)

Vrij et al. (1976)
Smit (1976)
De Veer et al. (1977a)
Van der Ham et al. (1970)
Kerkstra (1974)
Koster and De Veer (1972)
Maarleveld and De Lange (1972)

la
lb
lc
Id
2
3a
3b
4

-_-.

Author(s)

Method

Comparison of methods (main data)

TABLE II

>2
4
1
>16
13
1
5
1

No. of
areas
mapped

1260
3850
37 000
1826
3211
100
1270
380

Area mapped
in published
studies
(km)

~~

100-250
25-250
600
5-100
25-250
60
25-100
50

---.-

Scales
(25 = 1:25 000
etc.)

GlO
1
1
>I
5
2
1

No. of
maps
per area

?
41-52
30-41
70-204
77-95
120
68-l 02
51

Costs per km*

(Dflf*

58

TABLE

III

Dominant
---__~

landscape attributes present in map legends

~
~_

Method

Concrete

Tree
vegetation

Buildings
urbanization

Water

Relief

USC!

++
++
++
++
0
-

0
+
+
++
0
-

+
+
+
c
+

0
+
++
0
+

0
+
c+
c
+

0
++

0
0

0
-

0
+

D
+*

Land

la
lb
In
Id
2
3a
3b
4

Abstract attributes

attributes

++ = extensively

structure

+
+
-

Complexity,
diversity

++
0
++
f
. -~-

space
(-mass)
++
0
+
++
++
++
++
f

used; + = partly used; 0 = scarcely used: -- = unused.

cumbersome legend requires modification

for use at larger scales. Method 2
is strong on the perception of space, but pays little attention to the contents
of a space or the nature of the boundaries. Method 4 needs considerable
development
to extend it from the river flood plains to the rest of the country; Method la is too generalized. The grid approach of Methods 3a and 3b
precludes the delimitation
of landscape units along natural boundaries;
moreover, field appraisal plays a minor role as abstract concepts receive most
attention in the map legends. Method lb gives much information,
but relies
heavily on the map makers assessment of maps and aerial photos. Method
Id requires comprehensive
field survey and pays more attention than the
others to the problems of mapping forested land, but it suffers from a complicated legend.
Suruey of users requirements
Fifty-four potential users of landscape data were solicited for information
on their use and need for these data. They ranged from State services and
ministries, provincial services, provincial landscape consultants to private
landscape consultants and other private institutes (e.g., the tourist board).
Forty-six replied (85% response). Most respondents already used landscape
data collected in various ways, and in 75% of the cases the landscape data
were displayed in maps. The most common -map scale was 1:25 000, but
1 :lO 000 and 1:50 000 were also used frequently. More than two-thirds of
respondents were willing to use systematic landscape maps prepared according to a nationaI system; among the State and Provincial users nine out of
ten expressed strong interest. Private and provincial consultants showed least
interest in the proposals for a national system; two-thirds of them showed a
positive response. Apart from commercial reasons, there may be a fear that a
national survey would stifle an individual approach to landscape evaluation
and pay insufficient attention to local landscape details.

59

Users were asked about the application and data content of landscape
maps. Five categories of application scored high:
- vulnerability
designation (e.g., visibility of a new building, road or power
line);
- suitability designation (e.g., for different recreation activities);
- public landscape preferences (e.g., as determined by a questionnaire using
colour photographs of selected landscapes);
- landscape evaluation (using parameters such as diversity, rareness, or
replacement possibilities) for conservation planning;
- landscape design (the creation of new or modification
of old landscapes).
Only landscape management scored low.
Many users stated that data about the distribution of single landscape elements (e.g., the location of all rows of transparent, high poplars) or specific
combinations
of elements (concrete or abstract typologies) were often required, as well as information
on different visible influences such as industrial
or suburban areas. However, landscape evaluations for specific purposes were
not necessarily required to be displayed on maps but could be presented in
tabular form.
The main conclusion from the questionnaire
was that users demands for
physio~omi~
landscape mapping vary enormously,
both in terms of mapping
scale and map content.
DISCUSSION

The survey of users of landscape information made clear that there is a

strong demand for a national approach to mapping landscape information
in
The Netherlands. It is obvious that the variety in users demands exceeds the
capabilities of any single mapping system studied. Moreover, it appears that
even in a country as small as The Netherlands there is sufficient diversity in
landscapes and in research techniques to warrant the use of different
approaches to landscape classification. Not only are different classification
approaches needed, but data must be presented at a wide range of scales
suitable for immediate application. The Netherlands Soil Survey Institute
concluded that none of the landscape mapping techniques examined was
completely suitable for the foundation of a national approach to landscape
mapping.
On the other hand, many of the methods start from basically similar data
(landscape elements), whether derived from field survey or maps and aerial
photographs.
There could be considerable advantages if a single survey could
be designed to supply data for several landscape classification methods,
which could then be mapped at different scales. This would save time and
money in areas where planners requested surveys according to several techniques. It would also allow greater flexibility of interpretation.
The focus of the recommendations,
therefore, swung away from a choice
of a single, most suitable classification technique, towards a survey of ele-

60

merits and data handling methodolo~

that would allow the greatest flexibility to meet users needs. Clearly, conventional
mapping procedures would be
too cumbersome,
so the Netherlands Soil Survey Institute recommended
that investigations
were made into suitable computer-assisted
data-storage,
classification
and cartographic
techniques.
There is now a wide body of
experience in the use of computers for geographical data (e.g., Duffield and
Coppock, 1975; Margerison, 1976; Tomlinson et al., 1976). Also, The
Netherlands Soil Survey Institute has itself developed considerable
experience
in the automated handling of soil and geological data. With further research,
this experience could be developed to meet the needs of a physiognomic
landscape mapping problem.
In November 1976, the results of the study were accepted. To prepare the
way for a flexible physiognomic
landscape mapping programme, it was
recommended
that a list of landscape elements necessary for most mapping
methods should be compiled. Further research was recommended
for methods of data collection and the most appropriate computer graphics facilities.
The Netl~erlailds Soil Survey Institute Physio~omic
Research Division
has now begun a research programme into the data collection,
storage and
manipulation
techniques necessary for the support of a flexible, computerbased approach to landscape mapping. This program includes the active
participation
of user groups to advise on the most important aspects of data
collection and presentation.
The initial trials will take place in areas where planning problems exist.
Early results show that it is possible easily to collect sufficient landscape
element data to satisfy the needs of more than one existing landscape ciassification method. Maps of several classifications
can be produced from the same
data base. The maps can easily be plotted at any scale desired and overlaid on
other maps showing geology or landuse.
The first experiments
show that it is possible to model the visible aspects
of a landscape before and after development,
and to evaluate both stages in
terms of different classification
criteria. These experiments
will be reported
in more detail later: for the present, it is clear that the flexibility
of a computer-assisted approach can provide a unified methodology
capable of serving
the variety of demands and applications
for landscape data in The Netherlands.
Whether the surveys will be extended outside areas of immediate planning
interest or not depends largely on a wider acceptance of this type of mapping.

REFERENCES
Brussaard,
W., undated. The rules of physical planning in The Netherlands.
Ministry of
Housing and Physical Planning, The Hague, 36 pp.
Coeterier,
J.F., 1977. De betekenis
van de omgeving IV. Literatuurstudie
naar de waarneming en de waardering
van landschappen.
Rijksinstituut
voor Onderzoek
in de Bosen landschapsbouw
Lde Dorschkamp,
Wageningen,
102 pp.
Coeterier,
J.F. and Dijkstra,
H., 1976. Research
on the visual perception
and appreciation
01, and visual changes in a hedgerow landscape.
Landscape
Plann., 3: 421-452.

61

De Veer, A.A., 1977. De ruimtelijke

classificatie
van het Nederlandse
landschap.
KNAG
Geogr. Tijdschr.,
X1(2): 98-109
(in Dutch with English summary).
De Veer, A.A., Buitenhuis,
A. and Van het Loo, H., 1977a. Landschapsfysiognomie.
Par. 2.8, 3.2.1.10,
3.2.2.9
and 5.4. In: S.M. Ten Houte de Lange (Editor),
Rapport
van het Veluwe-onderzoek.
Pudoc, Wageningen
(in Dutch with English summary).
De Veer, A.A., Buitenhuis,
A. and Van het Loo, H., 1977b.
Vergelijking
van Nederlandse
methoden
van landschapsbeeldkartering
en hun toepassingsmogelijkheden.
Stichting
voor Bodemkartering/Centrum
voor Landbouwpublikaties
en Landbouwdocumentatie,
Wageningen,
65 pp. (in Dutch with English abstract).
Duffield,
B.S. and Coppock,
J.T., 1975. The delineation
of recreational
landscapes:
the
role of a computer-based
information
system. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 66: 141-148.
Dunn, M.C., 1974. Landscape
evaluation
techniques
- an appraisal and review of the
literature.
Working Paper 4, Centre for Urban and Regional
Studies,
Birmingham,
68 pp.
Haase, G., 1967. Zur Methodik
grossmassstabiger
landschaftsiikologischer
und naturraumlicher Erkundung.
In: H. Richter (Editor),
Probleme
der landschaftsokologischen
Erkundung und naturraumlichen
Gliederung.
Geogr. Ges. D.D.R.,
Leipzig, 35-128.
Huson, J.J. and Verstappen,
H.Th., 1968. The changing landscape of The Netherlands.
KNAG Geogr. Tijdschr.
II, 5: 506-521.
Jacobs, P. and Way, D., 1969. Visual analysis of landscape development.
Harvard
University,
Department
of Landscape
Architecture,
Cambridge,
Mass., 53 pp.
Kalkhoven,
J.T.R.,
Stumpel,
A.H.P. and Stumpel-Rienks,
S.E., 1976. Landelijke
milieukartering,
een beeld van de natuur in Nederland.
Rijksinstituut
voor Natuurbeheerl
Rijksplanologische
Dienst, Den Haag, 141 pp. + 4 appendices
(in Dutch with summary in
English, German and French).
Kerkstra,
K., 1974. De visuele aspekten.
In: Werkgroep
Helmond,
Landschapsonderzoek
Helmond.
Afdeling Landschapsarchitectuur
Landbouwhogeschool,
Wageningen, 178 PP.
(in Dutch with English summary).
Kiemstedt,
H., 1969. Eine Bewertungsziffer
fiir die Erholungseignung
der Landschaft.
Neues Arch. Niedersachsen,
Gottingen,
18( 1): 15-19.
Klink, H.J,, 1966. Naturraumliche
Gliederung
des Ith-Hils-Berglandes.
Forschungen
zur
Deutschen
Landeskunde,
Band 159, Bad Godesberg,
257 pp.
Koster, E.A. and De Veer, A.A., 1972. Een analyse van het landschap
ten noorden van
Amsterdam
aan de hand van de topografische
kaart. Stedebouw
en Volkshuisvesting,
53: 331-355
(in Dutch with English summary).
Lambert,
A.M., 1971. The Making of the Dutch Landscape.
Seminar Press, London,
412 pp.
Land Use Consultants,
1971. A planning classification
of Scottish
Landscape
Resources.
Countryside
Commission
for Scotland,
Occasional
Paper No. 1, Perth, 110 Pp.
Leser, H., 1976. Landschaftsiikologie.
Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart,
432 pp.
Linton,
D.L., 1968. The assessment
of scenery as a natural resource.
Scott. Geogr. Mag.,
84: 219-235.
Maarleveld,
G.C. and De Lange, G.W., 1972. Een globale geomorfologische
en landschappelijke kartering
en waardering van de uiterwaarden
van de Nederlandse
grote rivieren.
Landbouwkd.
Tijdschr.,
84(8):
273-288
(in Dutch with English abstract).
Margerison,
T.A., 1976. Computers
and the renaissance
of cartography.
Natural
Environmental
Research
Council/Experimental
Cartography
Unit. HMSO, London,
20 PP.
Ministerie
van CRM, 1977. Cultuurwaardenkaart
van Nederland,
samengesteld
door de
Bolwerkgroep
onder auspicien van de Natuurbeschermingsraad.
Utrecht.
Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, 1976. Summary of the Report on Urbanization in The Netherlands.
The Hague, 14 pp.
Nicolai, d., 1971. De visuele invloed van woonplaatsen
op open ruimten.
Doctoral
thesis,
Technische
Hogeschool,
Delft, 232 pp. (in Dutch with English summary).
Rijksplanologische
Dienst, 1966. Tweede nota over de ruimtelijke
ordening in Nederland.
Den Haag, 199 pp.

62

RijkspIanologische
Dienst, 1974. Ori~nteringsnota
ruimtelijke
ordening.
Den Haag, 124 pp.
Sehuurmans,
J. and Van Schie, J., 1968.
Landschapstypen.
Tijdschr.
K. Ned. Heidemaatsch.,
79: 101-110.
Smit, H.F., 1976. Uitgewerkte
schets voor een middelsehalige
classificatie
van Nederlandse
landschappen.
Zwolle, Van Hille Gaerthestraat
42. 65 pp. (stencil).
Steinitz,
C., Murray, T., Sinton,
D. and Way, D., 1969. A comparative
study of resource
analysis methods.
Harvard University,
Department
of Landscape
Architecture,
Cambridge, Mass., 382 pp.
Tomlinson,
R.F., Calkins, H.W. and Marble, D.F., 1976. Computer
handling of geographical data. UNESCO
Natural Resources
Research
XIII, Paris, 214 pp.
Van der Ham, R.J.I.M.,
Schut, G.F.E. and Iding, J.A.M.E.,
1970. Een voorstel voor een
nieuwe landsehaptypologie
naar visuele kenmerken.
Stedebouw
en Volkshuisvesting,
51: 421-438.
Van der Poel, A.J., 1976. From landscape care to research in landscape planning.
Landscape Plann., 3: 363-370.
Vrij, F.V., 1976. Landschapsbeleving
en ruimtelijke
planning.
Provinciale
Planologische
Dienst Noord-Brabant,
s Hertogenbosch,
70 pp.
Weir, M.J.C.,
1976. Landscape
evaluation
in Great Britain - a short review. Meded. Werkgemeenschap
Landschapsecologi~h
Onderzoek,
3: 15-20.
Zonnevetd,
IS., Tjallingii,
S.P. and Meester-Broertjes,
H.A. (Editors),
1975. Landschapstaal.
Meded. Werkgemeenschap
Landschapsecologisch
Onderzoek,
extra nummer,
38 pp.