Environ Monit Assess (2009) 154:459468

DOI 10.1007/s10661-008-0412-5

Determination of waterscape beauties through visual

quality assessment method
Zohre Bulut Hasan Yilmaz

Received: 7 January 2008 / Accepted: 22 May 2008 / Published online: 27 June 2008
Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Besides being an indispensable life

element, water is also in the first rows among the
most important landscape elements that have the
visual reserve value in both natural and cultural
environments. In this study, the aim was to present
suggestions about the use of waterscapes in landscape design and planning attempts by determining the water types bearing high visual reserve
values among different types of waterscapes bearing high visual reserve values. The visual quality assessment method was used in this study.
One hundred and twenty eight university students
ranked the six waterscapes in a visual quality
survey. The results showed that urban waterscape
scenery [visual quality point (VQP) = 6.0391],
was the most preferred category, whereas, river
scenery (VQP = 3.5547) was the least preferred.
The second preferred waterscape was waterfall (in
rural landscape) scenery (VQP = 5.8594) and the
third was standing water scenery (SWS; VQP =
5.3672). The relationships between landscape parameters and visual quality of landscape indicated
that vividness and fascinaty parameters had a
significant relation with preference. Some suggestions were made regarding the use of wa-

Z. Bulut (B) H. Yilmaz

Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Landscape
Architecture, Atatrk University, 25240,
Erzurum, Turkey
e-mail: zbulut@atauni.edu.tr

terscapes visual value in planning and designing

of the landscape.
Keywords Visual quality assessment
Visual quality of waterscapes Waterscapes

Introduction
Landscape is defined as the unity of a number of natural and cultural elements of a specific
view (Ko and Sahin

1999). Natural and cultural

elements form the views bearing visual reserve
values either individually or in a combination.
In a landscape, sometimes natural elements are
predominant while sometimes cultural elements
are. Hence, a landscape may be ranked from
either natural or cultural point of view. Landscapes where natural elements are dominant are
defined as natural landscapes. Natural elements in
this kind of areas may be exemplified as water
reserves, vegetation, wild life, climatic features,
topography etc. Of these elements, water is the
most indispensable natural element of landscape.
Water used either with its natural form or culturally organized elements in landscape design
and planning attempts provides recreational opportunities with users. Water is a base element
for recreation. Smardon (1988) classified waterrecreation activities into four categories; kinetic,
situation-based, harvest-based and substitution-

460

based experiences. In recreational areas; shorelines, beaches, watersheds, estuaries, dams, wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams, waterfalls, pools and
other waterscapes present visual beauties and
recreational potentials for recreationalists.
In landscape design and planning attempts,
landscape architects try to evaluate water in visual, physical and psychological aspects and they
target that people should perceive all values of
water used in the area. People mostly prefer the
areas where water is present on their recreational
activities (Smardon 1988) and they show a natural
bias towards water reserves. This is an intrinsic
movement people perform by behaving in convenience with their nature. In this respect, the use
of water resources in land uses is very important
part of planning and designing of urban and rural
landscapes. Using water resources as a planning
element means both preservation management
for water resources and designing a recreational
area for people. What attracts people to water element and makes water fascinating and impressive
is the visual quality of water landscape formed by
water and its surrounding. A water surface with
visual quality can attract larger people masses.
In landscape planning and design, preference of
recreationalists play a very important role in the
use of water element. Visual quality assessment
studies (Herzog 1985; Krause 2001) can determine that water landscapes are more preferred
for recreational purposes, and what types of water
elements are found to be attractive.
Visual landscapes should be considered as important natural resources just like water, soil,
mines and fossil fuels (Kane 1981). The visible
landscape is believed to affect human beings such
as aesthetic appreciation and health and wellbeing (Velarde et al. 2007). Today, visual quality
assessment has become more important in gathering data to be used in designing and planning
landscapes and landscapes elements. Daniel and
Boster (1976) started the basic assessment of visual quality in landscapes (Bergen et al. 1995).
Following studies, where visual quality assessments were conducted, focused on the fact that
there is an assessment need for areas or elements
that have visual values in planning and design
attempts. The visual data will help make sustainable planning; sustainable nature and landscape

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 154:459468

preservation and development on an aesthetic

landscape (Krause 2001).
Visual quality assessments, in which landscapes
were evaluated by the participants, were applied
for different types of landscapes in various studies,
such as Arriaza et al. (2004) for rural landscapes;
Clay and Smidt (2004) for highways; Clay and
Daniel (2000) for road corridor; Gandy et al.
(2007) for data for traveller information system; Hammitt et al. (1994), Bergen et al. (1995),
Sheppard and Picard (2005), Ribe (2005, 2006)
for forests; Yu (1995), Acar et al. (2006), Binabe
and Hearne (2006) for conservation areas and
national parks; Kaltenborn and Bjerke (2002) for
World Heritage areas; Hands and Brown (2002)
for ecological rehabilitation areas; Ulrich (1986),
Tzolova (1995) and Misgav (2000) for vegetation types; Tahvanainen et al. (2002) agricultural
landscapes; Sullivan and Lovell (2006) for rural
urban fringes; Meitner (2004) for river views; Ribe
(1994) for recreational areas; field/forests, Herzog
and Barnes (1999) for deserts and large waterscapes; Wilson et al. (1995) for freshwater harbour
and contiguous wetlands; Herzog (1985) for waterscapes; and De Val et al. (2006), Karjalainen
and Komulainen (1999); Van den Berg and Koole
(2006) for different landscapes. Several similar
studies on visual quality assessment have been carried out by some Turkish researchers in Turkey in
the following studies for rural and urban-fringed
landscapes (Kaplan et al. 2006), urban landscapes
et al. 2006), urban rocky habitats
(Mderrisoglu
(Acar and Sakc 2008) and ruralurban landscapes (Bulut 2006; Bulut and Yilmaz 2008).
The aims of this study were as follows: (1) to
determine the visually quality degrees of some
waterscapes in landscapes, (2) to preserve and
make an element of the most preferred waterscapes as a planning and designing elements of
the recreational areas, (3) to offer suggestions for
future planning studies regarding the use of water
resources as a visual research.

Material and method

The material of the research includes six waterscape photographs from urban and rural areas.
Among the 50 photographs, taken from rural and

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 154:459468

urban landscapes, some randomly selected ones

were grouped according to waterscape types;

River Scenery (RS)

Waterfall (in rural landscape) Scenery (WS)
Wetland Scenery
Standing Water Scenery (SWS)
Urban Waterscape (Pond) Scenery
Dam Scenery

Of these landscapes, five are the waterscapes

in various rural landscapes. The left one is a
cultural waterscape. In the study, these six waterscapes were subjected to the visual quality assessment considering the visual preferences of 128
university students. The most common method
used for visual quality assessment is The Scenic
Beauty Estimation Method- SBE, developed by
Daniel and Boster 1976 (Bergen et al. 1995).
Visual quality assessment applied in this study
is based on the following studies: Daniel and
Boster (1976) Bergen et al. (1995), Kane (1981);
Herzog (1985), Bergen et al. (1995), Daniel
(2001), Hands and Brown (2002), Meitner (2004),
Clay and Smidt (2004), Arriaza et al. (2004), Acar
et al. (2006), Bulut (2006), Bulut and Yilmaz
(2008).
The following procedure is applied in the visual
quality method used in this study.
The investigation of visual quality
The participants of the analysis: 3rd (n = 27) and
4th (n = 21) year students of the Department of
Landscape Architecture, the students of Department of Agriculture (n = 80). A total 128 university students (aged between 15 and 39) completed
the questionnaire forms. A presentation was prepared to give information about waterscapes and
the importance of the water in the landscape. This
presentation also aimed at introducing the various
waterscapes and at helping them to create their
own criteria before the evaluation process. Later
on, the photographs were shown to the participants via visual quality assessment presentation.
In the questionnaire, the participants were asked
to evaluate the photographs via their preferences.
The participants were informed about landscape parameters. The evaluation was made by

461

using 7-point scale for each photograph for each

of the following features: visual preference and
5 descriptor variables (vividness, harmony, fascinaty, naturalness, being interesting). In this 7point scale 1 point was the lowest and 7 was the
highest. The participants were also told that they
should focus on the landscape rather than on the
quality of the photograph.
Statistical analysis
The SPSS 13.0 statistics program was used for
statistical analyses. The averages were calculated
and correlations were performed using the nonparametric rank test.

Results
Characteristics of the participants and results of
the study are presented below.
Demographic characteristics of the participants in
visual quality assessment
Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of 128 participants who completed the
questionnaire.
The analysis of visual values of the waterscapes
Table 2 shows the averages of visual preferences
grades for each waterscape type in an order from
the highest to the lowest. Among those, the highest one is urban waterscape scenery [UWS; visual
quality point (VQP) = 6.0391], the second is WS
(VQP = 5.8594) and the third is SWS 3 (VQP =
5.3672; Fig. 1).
Among the waterscapes, the highest VQP is
the UWS (Table 2). The parameter with the highest point for UWS is vividness (mean 5.8438).
The highest parameter for Waterfall (In Rural
Landscape) Scenery (WSW; mean 6.5313), SWS
(mean 6.1094), Dam Scenery Wetland Scenery
(mean 5.3516) and RS (mean 5.8125) is naturalness. These results show that vividness and

462

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 154:459468

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the participants

Demographic factors

Participants

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Gender

Male
Female
1524
2539
University students (not graduated)
Student
City settled by water surface
City not settled by water surface

62
66
122
6
128
128
58
70

48.4
51.6
95.3
4.7
100
100
45.3
54.7

Distribution for age

Distribution for education levels
Distribution for occupational groups
Living area

naturalness parameters received the highest

points in waterscapes.
The relationship between visual preference
points and semantic descriptors
While asking the visual preference, participants
also graded the perceptual parameters (i.e. vividness, harmony, fascinaty, naturalness, being interesting) of each photograph. Relationship between
the visual preference grades and perceptual parameters was evaluated using Spearsmans correlation test.
Urban Waterscape Scenery
Among the waterscapes, it was UWS that had
the highest (VQP) point. Relation between
VQP of this scenery (UWSVQP) and perceptual
parameters (i.e. vividness, harmony, fascinaty,
naturalness, being interesting) was found to be
statistically very significant ( p < 0.01). It was determined that as the grades given to the vividness

(UWSVIVID; r = 0.553), harmony (UWSHAR

MONY; r = 0.505), fascinaty (UWSFASCINATY;
r = 0.562), naturalness (UWSNATURALNESS
(r = 0.438), being interesting (UWSINTERESTING; r = 0.481) increase, visual preference points
(UWSVQP) also increase. In this waterscape, visual preference grades were affected by fascinaty
(r = 0.562) and vividness (r = 0.553) the most
(Table 3).
Waterfall (In Rural Landscape) scenery
Among the waterscapes, WS (WSVQP) had the
second highest VQ point. Relation between VQP
of this scenery and perceptual parameters (i.e.
vividness, harmony, fascinaty, naturalness, being
interesting) was found to be statistically very significant ( p < 0.01). It was determined that as
the grades given to the vividness (WSVIVID; r =
0.485), harmony (WSHARMONY; r = 0.340), fascinaty (WSFASCINATY; r = 0.465), naturalness
(WSNATURALNESS; r = 0.405), being interesting (WSINTERESTING; r = 0.342) increase, visual preference points (WSVQP) also increase.

Table 2 The averages of visual preferences grades for each landscape type
Graduated of visual quality

Sceneries have the highest VQP in the scenery types

Average VQP

Standard
deviation

1
2
3
4
5
6

UWS
WSW
SWS
DS
WETS
RS

128
128
128
128
128
128

6.0391
5.8594
5.3672
4.5547
3.7578
3.5547

1.19975
1.12056
1.41906
1.64009
1.33839
1.38501

DS dam scenery, WETS wetland scenery

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 154:459468

Fig. 1 Waterscape
sceneries with high
visual quality degrees

463

1
UWS
VQP= 6.0391

2
WSW
VQP= 5.8594

URBAN WATERSCAPE SCENERY (UWS)

3
SWS
VQP= 5.3672

4
DS
VQP= 4.5547

STANDING WATER SCENERY (SWS)

5
WETS
VQP= 3.7578

Standing water scenery

Among the waterscapes in the study, SWS had the
third highest VQ points. Relation between VQP
(SWSVQP) belonging to this scenery and per-

DAM SCENERY (DS)

6
RS
VQP= 3.5547

WETLAND SCENERY (WETS)

In this waterscape, visual preference grades were

affected by vividness (r = 0.485) and fascinaty
(r = 0.465) the most (Table 4).

WATERFALL (IN RURAL

LANDSCAPE) SCENERY (WSW)

RIVER SCENERY (RS)

ceptual parameters (i.e. vividness, harmony, fascinaty, naturalness, being interesting) was found to
be statistically very significant ( p < 0.01). It was
found that as the points given to the vividness
(SWSVIVID; r = 0.636), harmony (SWSHARMONY; r = 0.559), fascinaty (SWSFASCINATY;
r = 0.696), naturalness (SWSNATURALNESS;
r = 0.548), being interesting (SWSINTERESTING; r = 0.391) increase, visual preference points

464

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 154:459468

Table 3 Correlation analysis of visual quality (VQ) of UWS and semantic descriptors

UWSVQP
UWSVIVID
UWSHARMONY
UWSFASCINATY
UWSNATURELNESS
UWSINTERESTING
a Correlation

UWSVQP

UWSVIVID

UWSHARMONY

UWSFASCINATY

UWSNATURELNESS

0.553a
0.505a
0.562a
0.438a
0.481a

0.477a
0.497a
0.436a
0.312a

0.528a
0.419a
0.369a

0.475a
0.501a

0.528a

is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

(SWSVQP) also increase. In this waterscape, visual preference point was affected by fascinaty
(r = 0.696) and vividness (r = 0.636) the most
(Table 5).
Dam scenery
Relation between VQP (DSVQP) belonging to
dam scenery and perceptual parameters (i.e.
vividness, harmony, fascinaty, naturalness, being
interesting) was found to be statistically very significant ( p < 0.01). It was found that as the points
given to the vividness (DSVIVID; r = 0.792),
harmony (DSHARMONY; r = 0.612), fascinaty (DSFASCINATY; r = 0.662), naturalness
(DSNATURALNESS; r = 0.537), being interesting (DSINTERESTING; r = 0.527) increase, visual preference points (DSVQP) also increase. In
this waterscape, visual preference point was affected by the parameters of vividness (r = 0.792)
and fascinaty (r = 0.662) the most (Table 6).
Wetland scenery
Relation between VQP (WETSVQP) belonging
to WETLAND SCENERY and perceptual para-

meters (i.e. vividness, harmony, fascinaty, naturalness, being interesting) was found to be statistically very significant ( p< 0.01). It was found
that as the points given to the vividness (WETS
VIVID; r = 0.634), harmony (WETSHARMONY;
r = 0.274), fascinaty (WETSFASCINATY; r =
0.542), naturalness (WETSNATURALNESS;
r = 0.227), being interesting (WETSINTERESTING; r = 0.511) increase, visual preference points
(WETSVQP) also increase. In this waterscape,
visual preference point was affected by the
parameters of vividness (r = 0.634) and fascinaty
(r = 0.542) the most (Table 7).
River scenery
Relation between VQP (RSVQP) belonging to
RS and perceptual parameters (i.e. vividness,
harmony, fascinaty, naturalness, being interesting) was found to be statistically very significant ( p < 0.01). It was found that as the points
given to the vividness (RSVIVID) (r = 0.615),
harmony (RSHARMONY (r = 0.494)), fascinaty (RSFASCINATY (r = 0.679)), naturalness
(RSNATURALNESS (r = 0.346)), being interesting (RSINTERESTING (r = 0.499)) increase,

Table 4 Correlation analysis of visual quality (VQ) of WSW and semantic descriptors

WSVQP
WSVIVID
WSHARMONY
WSFASCINATY
WSNATURELNESS
WSINTERESTING
a Correlation

WSVQP

WSVIVID

WSHARMONY

WSFASCINATY

WSNATURELNESS

0.485a
0.340a
0.465a
0.405a
0.342a

0.432a
0.382a
0.313a
0.169

0.369a
0.329a
0.256a

0.369a
0.506a

0.322a

is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 154:459468

465

Table 5 Correlation analysis of visual quality (VQ) of SWS and semantic descriptors

SWSVQP
SWSVIVID
SWSHARMONY
SWSFASCINATY
SWSNATURELNESS
SWSINTERESTING
a Correlation

SWSVQP

SWSVIVID

SWSHARMONY

SWSFASCINATY

SWSNATURELNESS

0.636a
0.559a
0.696a
0.548a
0.391a

0.621a
0.630a
0.409a
0.379a

0.612a
0.602a
0.287a

0.578a
0.534a

0.234a

is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 6 Correlation analysis of visual quality (VQ) of Dam Scenery and semantic descriptors

DSVQP
DSVIVID
DSHARMONY
DSFASCINATY
DSNATURELNESS
DSINTERESTING
a Correlation

DSVQP

DSVIVID

DSHARMONY

DSFASCINATY

DSNATURELNESS

0.792a
0.612a
0.662a
0.537a
0.527a

0.733a
0.671a
0.528a
0.612a

0.685a
0.532a
0.492a

0.472a
0.659a

0.387a

is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 7 Correlation analysis of visual quality (VQ) of Wetland Scenery and semantic descriptors
WETSVQP

WETSVQP
WETSVIVID
WETSHARMONY
WETSFASCINATY
WETSNATURELNESS
WETSINTERESTING
a Correlation
b Correlation

0.634a
0.274a
0.542a
0.227a
0.511a

WETSVIVID

0.445a
0.577a
0.442a
0.429a

WETSHARMONY

0.383a
0.486a
0.311a

WETSFASCINATY

0.286a
0.637a

WETSNATUREL
NESS

0.213b

is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 8 Correlation analysis of visual quality (VQ) of RS and semantic descriptors

RSVQP
RSVIVID
RSHARMONY
RSFASCINATY
RSNATURELNESS
RSINTERESTING
a Correlation

RSVQP

RSVIVID

RSHARMONY

RSFASCINATY

RSNATURELNESS

0.615a
0.494a
0.679a
0.346a
0.499a

0.502a
0.541a
0.350a
0.447a

0.373a
0.351a
0.341a

0.348a
0.432a

0.164

is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

466

visual preference points (RSVQP) also increase.

In this waterscape, visual preference point was
affected by the parameters of fascinaty (r = 0.679)
and vividness (r = 0.615) the most (Table 8).
Generally speaking, in the types of waterscapes, VQPs were favourably affected by the parameters of vividness and fascinaty the most. Vivid
and fascinating waterscapes have also higher
reserve values.

Discussion and conclusion

In the study, where the answers of the questions
Is water a visually fascinating and impressive
landscape element for people? and Which waterscapes are visually more preferred? tried to be
sought, visual quality of various water types was
investigated.
The visual data of landscape elements will
help making sustainable planning; sustainable nature and landscape preservation and development on an aesthetic landscape (Krause 2001).
Visual quality of the landscape elements is their
most important feature that can directly affect the
user preference. There exists an absolute relation
between the features in urban and rural areas
such as vividness, harmony, fascinaty, naturalness
and being interesting and visually preference
grade which means that people make an area
preferential (Herzog 1985; Clay and Smidt 2004;
Arriaza et al. 2004; Acar et al. 2006; Acar and
Sakc 2008).
Present study focused on the fact that in the
planning and design attempts to be performed
with water, visual reserve values should be considered with great care, based on the preservation
and management philosophy of waterscapes in
landscapes. In the study, relation between VQPs
of six waterscapes obtained from the questionnaires and points given to the semantic parameters of the photographs, such as, vividness,
harmony, fascinaty, naturalness and being interesting was determined.
The results of the study revealed that three
waterscape types had the highest visual quality.
The highest one is UWS (VQP = 6.0391), the
second is WS (VQP = 5.8594) and the third is SWS

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 154:459468

3 (VQP = 5.3672; Fig. 1). RS (VQP = 3.5547) was

found to be the least preferred.
Brockerhoff (2000) stated that urban population is expected to double to 4 billion by 2025,
accounting for about 90% of global population
growth. Urban people have a generalized bias
toward landscape architectural arrangements in
urban areas with an intrinsic motivation of being
with natural landscape elements. Being an important part of urban landscape, water is a landscape
element which attracts people. In the present
study, where a user mass which was composed of
students who dominantly (54.7%) dont live near
water surfaces participated, the result of visual
quality assessment were presented. According to
the outcomes of the assessment, the most preferred water type is an urban waterscape which
is designed in a natural like way; surrounded by
flower parades; equipped with wooden walking
rings and water sprinklings. Users gave the highest
points to this water type which they can access
with ease and use in recreational purposes.
The areas where natural landscape elements
are predominant generally offer attractive and
views on which people focus (Herzog 1985; Acar
and Sakc 2008; Arriaza et al. 2004; Meitner
2004). In this study, a similar situation was found
by seeing that water types, such as, WS (WSW)
taking place in natural vegetation in natural
landscape and SWS taking place among limestone formations with its natural form are highly
preferred.
Water is an important reserve value which has
an attraction force and is accepted as a corner
stone of landscape planning and design attempts.
In order to provide sustainability in natural and
urban areas, suggestions below should be considered in planning and design attempts by accepting waterscapes as sole elements of natural and
cultural life.

The visual resources have to be preserved and

used for the future planning of the landscape
elements.
The visual resources as urban waterscapes
and other waterscapes should be considered
as ecological and economical values for the
future planning and designing of the urban
and rural landscapes.

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 154:459468

Visual qualities of waterscapes should be accepted as resource value of landscapes and

waterscapes must be managed because of their
ecological, economic, recreational values and
visual resources.

References
Acar, C., & Sakc, . (2008). Assessing landscape perception of urban rocky habitats. Building and Environment, 43(6), 11531170.
Acar, C., Kurdoglu, B., Kurdoglu, O., & Acar, H. (2006).
Public preferences for visual quality and management
in Kakar Mountains National Park (Turkey). The
International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology, 13(6), 499512, December.
Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J. F., Canas-Madueno, J. A., &
Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of
rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69,
115125, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029.
Bergen, S. D., Ulbricht, C. A., Fridley, J. L., & Ganter,
M. A. (1995). The validity of computer generated
graphic images of forest landscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 135146, doi:10.1016/02724944(95)90021-7.
Binabe, E., & Hearne, R. R. (2006). Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty
within a framework of environmental services payments. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(4), 335348,
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.10.002.
Brockerhoff, M. (2000). Achieving urban food and nutrition security in the developing world, 2020 vision. An
urbanizing world. Focus, 3, Brief 2 of 10, August 2000.
http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus03/focus03_02.pdf.
Bulut, Z. (2006). The evaluation of recreational tourism
potential of Kemaliye (Erzincan) and nearby within
an alternative tourism framework Ataturk Univ. Natural and Applied Sciences Institution, Landscape
Architecture Dept. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis),
Erzurum.
Bulut, Z., & Yilmaz, H. (2008). Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment
method: A case study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/
Turkey). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
141(13), 121129.
Clay, G. R., & Daniel, T. C. (2000). Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management
jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 49(12), 113,
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00055-4.
Clay, G. R., & Smidt, R. K. (2004). Assessing the validity
and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic
highway analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning,
66(4), 239255, doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00114-2.
Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(14), 267281.

467
De Val, G. F., Atauri, J. A., & De Lucio, J. V. (2006).
Relationship between landscape visual attributes and
spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterraneanclimate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning,
77(4), 393407, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.003.
Gandy, R., Meitner, M. J., & Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (2007). The effects of
an advanced traveller information system on scenic
beauty ratings and the enjoyment of a recreational
drive. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(12), 8593,
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.018.
Hammitt, W. E., Patterson, M. E., & Noe, F. P. (1994).
Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 29(239), 171183.
Hands, D. E., & Brown, R. D. (2002). Enhancing visual
preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(1), 5770.
Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference
for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5(3), 225241.
Herzog, T. R., & Barnes, G. J. (1999). Tranquility and
preference reviseted. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(2), 171181, doi:10.1006/jevp.1998.0109.
Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape
preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 111,
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2.
Kane, P. S. (1981). Assessing landscape attactiveness: a
comparative test of two new method. Applied Geography, 1, 7796.
Kaplan, A., Taskn, T., & nen, A. (2006). Assessing the visual quality of rural and urbanfringed Landscapes surrounding livestock farms.
Biosystems Engineering, 95(3), 437448, doi:10.1016/j.
biosystemseng.2006.07.011.
Karjalainen, E., & Komulainen, M. (1999). The visual
effect of felling on small and mediu -scale landscapes in North-eastern Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 55, 167181, doi:10.1006/
jema.1998.0238.
Ko, N., & Sahin,

S.
(1999). Rural Landscape Planning. Ankara Univ. Agricultural Faculty publications
No:1509, p 275, Ankara.
Krause, C. L. (2001). Our visual landscape: Managing
the landscape under special consideration of visual
aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(12),
239254, doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00139-6.
Meitner, M. J. (2004). Scenic beauty of river views in
the Grand Canyon: relating perceptual judgments to
location. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 313,
doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00115-4.
Misgav, A. (2000). Visual preference of the public for
vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 48, 143159.
H., Eroglu,
E., zkan, S.,
Mderrisoglu,
ve Ak, K. (2006).
Visual perception of tree forms. Building and Environment, 41(6), 796806.
Ribe, R. G. (1994). Scenic beauty perceptions along the
ROS. Journal of Environmental Management, 42(3),
199221.

468
Ribe, R. G. (2005). Aesthetic perceptions of greentree retention harvests in vista views: The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest
shape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(4), 277
293, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.07.003.
Ribe, R. G. (2006). Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(2), 100115,
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.05.004.
Sheppard, S., & Picard, P. (2005). Visual-quality impacts of forest pest activity at the landscape level:
A synthesis of published knowledge and research
needs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(4), 321
342, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.007.
Smardon, R. C. (1988). Water recreation in North
America. Landscape and Urban Planning, 16(12),
127143, doi:10.1016/0169-2046(88)90039-4.
Sullivan, W. C., & Lovell, S. T. (2006). Improving the
visual quality of commercial development at the
ruralurban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(12), 152166, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.
2005.01.008.
Tahvanainen, L., Ihalainen, M., Hietala-Koivu, R.,
Kolehmainen, O., Tyrvinen, L., Nousiainen, O., et al.
(2002). Measures of the EU agri-environmental
protection scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the

Environ Monit Assess (2009) 154:459468

visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes.
Journal of Environmental Management, 66, 213227,
Medline.
Tzolova, G. V. (1995). An experiment in greenway analysis and assessment: the Danbe River. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 33(13), 283294, doi:10.1016/
0169-2046(94)02023-9.
Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and
landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 2944,
doi:10.1016/0169-2046(86)90005-8.
Van den Berg, A. E., & Koole, S. L. (2006). New
wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of
visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 362
372, doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006.
Velarde, M. D., Fry, G., & Tveit, M. (2007). Health effects
of viewing landscapeslandscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 199212.
Wilson, M. I., Robertson, L. D., Daly, M., & Walton, S. A.
(1995). Effects of visual cues on assessment of water
quality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(1),
5363, doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90014-4.
Yu, K. (1995). Cultural variations in landscape preference:
comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and western
design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(2),
107126, doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9.