Aesthetic Quality Assessment of Landscapes as a Model for Urban Forest Areas: A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Defining of Urban-Forest Aesthetics;
- Benefits of Urban-Forest Aesthetics;
- Philosophy and Assessment Background of Landscapes Aesthetics as a Model for Urban-Forest Aesthetics;
- Assessment Approaches of Landscapes Aesthetics as a Model for Urban-Forest Aesthetics;
- Assessment Variables of Landscapes Aesthetics as a Model for Urban-Forest Aesthetics;
- Aesthetic Quality Assessment Framework for Urban Forest Area.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Keyword Selection
2.2. Relevant Literature Screening
2.3. Data Collection
3. Results
3.1. Defining of Urban-Forest Aesthetics
- Urban-forest aesthetics is a sensation of pleasure that gives people a positive outlook on life and makes them feel livelier and more active when viewing urban forests.
- Urban-forest “objectivist” aesthetics is an intrinsic quality of urban-forest physical elements.
- Urban-forest “subjectivist” aesthetics is a quality in the eye of the beholder that differs from one person to another according to personal values and psychological towards urban forests.
3.2. Benefits of Urban-Forest Aesthetics
3.3. Philosophy and Assessment Background of Landscape Aesthetics as a Model for Urban-Forest Aesthetics
3.4. Assessment Approaches of Landscapes Aesthetics as a Model for Urban Forests Aesthetics
3.4.1. Expert Approach
3.4.2. Perception Approach
3.4.3. Converging Approach
3.5. Assessment Variables of Landscapes Aesthetics as a Model for Urban-Forest Aesthetics
3.5.1. Urban-Forest Visual Character
3.5.2. Urban-Forest Visual Quality
3.6. Aesthetic Quality Assessment Framework for Urban Forest Area
4. Discussion
5. Limitations and Future Studies
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
No. | Document | First Author | Year | Journal | Method | Research Scope |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Research | Diechuan Yang | 2020 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Hierarchical identification of landscape character | Landscape character in national park. |
2 | Research | Bingqian Ma | 2020 | Forests | Questionnaire survey | Landscape visual aesthetic quality in urban area. |
3 | Research | Natalia Fumagalli | 2020 | Sustainability | Questionnaire survey | Landscape visual aesthetic quality in rural greenways. |
4 | Research | Sadegh Fathi | 2020 | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health | Questionnaire and analytical network process (ANP) | Landscape visual aesthetic quality to improve the physical health of citizens in urban spaces. |
5 | Research | Foltête Jean-Christophe | 2020 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Coupling of crowd-sourced imagery and visibility modeling. | Landscape aesthetic dimension. |
6 | Research | Jiaying Shi | 2020 | Sustainability | Questionnaire survey | Landscape aesthetic preference and landscape cognition for different land covers (parks, waters, structures, and forests). |
7 | Research | Oleksandr Karasov | 2020 | Ecological Indicators | GIS-based mapping | Landscape-aesthetic GIS analysis in national park. |
8 | Research | Hayk Khachatryan | 2020 | Land Use Policy | Eye-tracking | Landscape aesthetics and landscape care knowledge. |
9 | Research | Dmitry A. Ruban | 2020 | Geosciences | Field investigation | Landscapes aesthetic value of colluvial blocks. |
10 | Research | Zi Wang | 2020 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Questionnaire survey | Scenic beauty in national forest park. |
11 | Research | W.L. Zijlema | 2020 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Questionnaire survey | Landscape aesthetic ratings in four urban cities. |
12 | Research | Youngeun Kang | 2019 | Sustainability | Eye-tracking | Landscape visual aesthetics of urban areas. |
13 | Research | James F. Palmer | 2019 | Landscape and Urban Planning | GIS-based mapping | Landscape assessment model for visual impact assessment. |
14 | Research | Szu-Hsien Peng | 2019 | Sustainability | Expert survey/analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP) | Landscape aesthetic assessment of watershed. |
15 | Research | Joanna Badach | 2019 | Sustainability | Case studies | Landscape visual, ecological, and structural quality of urban riverside. |
16 | Research | Luca Battisti | 2019 | Sustainability | Participatory approach (interviews, questionnaires, and participatory mapping) | Landscape aesthetic perception of the park. |
17 | Research | Mikel Subiza-Pérez | 2019 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Questionnaire survey | Landscape-aesthetic-quality scale evaluation of green–blue spaces. |
18 | Research | Anthony Kerebel | 2019 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) modeling | Landscape aesthetic paradigm. |
19 | Research | Ronghua Wang | 2019 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Questionnaire survey | Landscape aesthetic preference in urban green spaces. |
20 | Review | Paul H. Gobster | 2019 | Landscape and Urban Planning | / | Landscape visual quality assessment. |
21 | Research | Kwang Youn Lee | 2019 | Sustainability | Viewshed and spatial aesthetic analysis | Visual and spatial aesthetics of the forest in mountain scenery. |
22 | Research | Mei Liu | 2019 | Sustainability | Questionnaire survey | Landscape aesthetic preference assessment of urban parks. |
23 | Research | Uta Schirpke | 2019 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Spatial modeling | Landscape aesthetic assessment of mountain regions. |
24 | Research | Hadi Beygi Heidarlou | 2019 | Land Use Policy | mapping and accuracy assessment | Landscape character |
25 | Research | Belén Martín | 2018 | Ecological Indicators | Describes two landscape scenarios | Landscape visual character. |
26 | Research | Ruth D. Swetnam | 2018 | Land Use Policy | Transferring metrics | Landscape aesthetic quality metrics. |
27 | Research | Johannes Hermes | 2018 | Ecosystem Services | Mapping and assessment of LAQ | Landscape aesthetic quality assessment. |
28 | Research | Ramesh Paudyal | 2018 | Forests | Questionnaire survey | Scenic beauty of forest area. |
29 | Research | David J. Nowak | 2018 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Simulations | Urban-forest benefits. |
30 | Research | Guo Li | 2017 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Identification and description of landscape character | Landscape character types. |
31 | Research | Ronghua Wang | 2017 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Questionnaire survey | Urban-forest aesthetic quality. |
32 | Research | K. Tessa Hegetschweiler | 2017 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Questionnaire survey | Urban-forest aesthetic quality. |
33 | Research | Yun Hye Hwang | 2017 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Questionnaire survey | Unprotected secondary urban forests. |
34 | Research | Heather M. Kiley | 2017 | Science of The Total Environment | Questionnaire survey | Preference, scenic attractiveness, and conservation value. |
35 | Research | Macario Rodríguez-Entrena | 2017 | Land Use Policy | Experiment method | Landscape visual aesthetic quality of olive groves. |
36 | Review | Iryna Dronova | 2017 | Landscape and Urban Planning | / | Landscape complexity of visual aesthetic quality. |
37 | Research | R.D. Swetnam | 2017 | Ecosystem Services | GIS-based mapping | Landscape visual aesthetic quality of rural area. |
38 | Review | Nigel Cooper | 2016 | Ecosystem Services | / | Aesthetic cultural values associated with ecosystems. |
39 | Research | Yohan Sahraoui | 2016 | Journal of Environmental Management | Questionnaire survey | Spatial modeling of landscape aesthetics of urban-rural areas. |
40 | Research | GAChad D. Pierskalla | 2016 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Moment-to-moment data and GIS | Landscape aesthetics of urban area. |
41 | Research | Ronghua Wang | 2016 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Questionnaire survey | Landscape visual aesthetic quality of urban, urban green space, farm, and forest areas. |
42 | Research | Meryem Atik | 2016 | Journal of Environmental Management | Landscape character assessment (LCA) tool for characterization | Landscape characters with terminology (aesthetics). |
43 | Review | Andrew Butler | 2016 | Landscape Research | / | Landscape character assessment. |
44 | Proceeding | Jamilah Othman | 2015 | Procedia Environmental Sciences | Questionnaire survey | Scenic beauty assessment of forest, hill, waterfall and lake. |
45 | Research | Xenia Junge | 2015 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Questionnaire survey | Landscape aesthetic quality of agricultural area. |
46 | Research | Sang Seop Lim | 2015 | Journal of Environmental Management | Questionnaire survey | Forest aesthetic value. |
47 | Proceeding | Noriah Othman | 2015 | Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences | Questionnaire survey | Landscape aesthetic values of national garden. |
48 | Research | Kaisa Hauru | 2014 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Questionnaire survey | Urban forest aesthetic appreciation. |
49 | Proceeding | Muhamad Solehin Fitry Rosley | 2014 | Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences | Questionnaire survey | Landscape aesthetic quality assessment. |
50 | Research | Gonzalo de la Fuente de Val | 2014 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Questionnaire survey | Landscape visual quality appreciation. |
51 | Research | Ksenia Kirillova | 2014 | Tourism Management | Interview | Tourist aesthetic judgment of nature and urban tourist destinations. |
52 | Research | Ondrej Kalivoda | 2014 | Journal of Environmental Management | Perception-based investigation (interview) | Landscape visual aesthetic quality. |
53 | Research | Sadasivam Karuppannan | 2014 | Journal of Sustainable Development | Case study | Urban green space. |
54 | Research | Jelena Vukomanovic | 2014 | Land | Visual quality metrics, viewshed analysis | Landscape aesthetics and pull factors. |
55 | Research | Isabelle D. Wolf | 2014 | Landscape and Urban Planning | questionnaire survey and GPS | Benefits of public green space. |
Snowball Method | ||||||
56 | Book Chapter | Jess Vogt | 2020 | Encyclopedia of the World’s Biomes | / | Urban forests: features and benefits. |
57 | Conference | Robert G. Sullivan | 2016 | National Association of Environmental Professionals Annual Conference | / | Visual resource inventory of national park. |
58 | Conference | Ahmet Tuğrul Polat | 2015 | 19th International Academic Conference | / | Landscape visual quality assessment. |
59 | Thesis | Marina Golivets | 2011 | Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences | Questionnaire survey | Forest aesthetic value. |
60 | Research | Allen Carlson | 2010 | Environmental Values | Suggestion and examination of positions | Aesthetic appreciation for the protection of nature. |
61 | Research | Mari Sundli Tveit | 2009 | Journal of Environmental Management | Questionnaire survey | Landscape aesthetic quality of agricultural area. |
62 | Review | T. Panagopoulos | 2009 | Ecological Economics | / | Forest aesthetic quality assessment. |
63 | Review | G. Fry | 2009 | Ecological Indicators | / | Landscape ecology visual quality. |
64 | Review | Angeline D. Gough | 2008 | Ecological Indicators | / | Sustainable forest management. |
65 | Review | Åsa Ode | 2008 | Landscape Research | / | Landscape aesthetic theory and landscape visual character. |
66 | Review | M.D. Velarde | 2007 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | / | Landscape aesthetics’ health and well-being effects. |
67 | Review | M. Tveit | 2006 | Landscape Research | / | Landscape visual quality assessment and landscape visual character. |
68 | Research | Robert G. Ribe | 2006 | Journal of Environmental Psychology | Questionnaire survey | Scenic beauty of forest conservation. |
69 | Research | Gonzalo de la Fuente de Val | 2006 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Questionnaire survey | Landscape spatial pattern and the rating of visual aesthetic quality. |
70 | Book Chapter | Liisa Tyrväinen | 2005 | Urban Forests and Trees | / | Benefits of urban forests |
71 | Research | Robert G. Ribe | 2005 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Questionnaire survey | Scenic beauty and design of forest. |
72 | Research | Assenna Todorova | 2004 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Questionnaire survey | Landscape aesthetic preferences. |
73 | Review | G.T. McDonald | 2004 | Forest Policy and Economics | / | Sustainable forest management. |
74 | Research | Gary R. Clay | 2004 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Questionnaire survey | Landscape scenic quality assessment along roads. |
75 | Research | K.F. Akbar | 2003 | Landscape and Urban Planning | Questionnaire survey | Landscape scenic quality assessment along roads. |
76 | Research | Liisa Tyrväinen | 2003 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | Questionnaire survey | Urban-forest aesthetic value. |
77 | Review | Colin Price | 2003 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | / | Urban-forest aesthetic benefits. |
78 | Book Chapter | Carys Swanwick | 2002 | The Countryside Agency, and Scottish Natural Heritage | / | Landscape character assessment. |
79 | Review | James F. Palmer | 2001 | Landscape and Urban Planning | / | Landscape visual quality assessment. |
80 | Review | Terry C. Daniel | 2001 | Landscape and Urban Planning | / | Landscape visual quality assessment. |
81 | Review | Andrew Lothian | 1999 | Landscape and Urban Planning | / | Landscape aesthetic philosophy. |
Categories | Number of Publications | |
---|---|---|
A | Document | |
Research papers | 57 | |
Review papers | 15 | |
Proceeding papers | 3 | |
Book chapters | 3 | |
Conference papers | 2 | |
Thesis | 1 | |
81 | ||
B | Year | |
2020 | 12 | |
2019 | 13 | |
2018 | 5 | |
2017 | 8 | |
2016 | 7 | |
2015 | 5 | |
2014 | 8 | |
2011 | 1 | |
2010 | 1 | |
2009 | 3 | |
2008 | 2 | |
2007 | 1 | |
2006 | 3 | |
2005 | 2 | |
2004 | 3 | |
2003 | 3 | |
2002 | 1 | |
2001 | 2 | |
1999 | 1 | |
81 | ||
C | Journal | |
Landscape and Urban Planning | 20 | |
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | 13 | |
Sustainability | 8 | |
Journal of Environmental Management | 5 | |
Ecological Indicators | 4 | |
Forests | 2 | |
Landscape Research | 3 | |
Land Use Policy | 4 | |
Ecosystem Services | 3 | |
Land | 1 | |
Forest Policy and Economics | 1 | |
Ecological Economics | 1 | |
Science of The Total Environment | 1 | |
Journal of Environmental Psychology | 1 | |
Tourism Management | 1 | |
Environmental Values | 1 | |
Journal of Sustainable Development | 1 | |
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health | 1 | |
Other | 10 | |
81 | ||
D | Method | |
Questionnaire survey method | 35 | |
Experiment method | 7 | |
Modeling method | 5 | |
GIS-mapping method | 6 | |
Landscape character identification method | 3 | |
Technique method | 3 | |
Interview method | 2 | |
Review method | 20 | |
81 | ||
E | Research scope | |
Landscape visual aesthetic quality assessment | 27 | |
Forest and urban-forest aesthetics | 20 | |
Landscape aesthetics | 17 | |
Landscape aesthetic preference | 5 | |
Landscape aesthetic philosophy and judgment | 5 | |
Landscape character | 5 | |
Urban green space | 2 | |
81 |
References
- Pierskalla, C.D.; Deng, J.; Siniscalchi, J.M. Examining the product and process of scenic beauty evaluations using moment-to-moment data and GIS: The case of Savannah, GA. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 19, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lothian, A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landsc. Urban Plan. 1999, 44, 177–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel, T.C. Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirillova, K.; Fu, X.; Lehto, X.; Cai, L. What makes a destination beautiful? Dimensions of tourist aesthetic judgment. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abu Bakar, S.; Al-Sharaa, A.; Suhardi, M.; Munther, R. Measuring Visual Pollution Threshold Along Kuala Lumpur Historic Shopping District Streets Using Cumulative Area Analysis. In Proceedings of the Visual Resource Stewardship Conference, Lemont, IL, USA, 27–30 October 2019; State University of New York: Albany, NY, USA, 2019. Available online: https://digitalcommons.esf.edu/vrconference/16 (accessed on 13 November 2020).
- Al-Sharaa, A.; Adam, M.; Amer Nordin, A.S.; Alhasan, A.; Mundher, R. A User-Centered Evaluation of Wayfinding in Outpatient Units of Public Hospitals in Malaysia: UMMC as a Case Study. Buildings 2022, 12, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, N.; Brady, E.; Steen, H.; Bryce, R. Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 21, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ribe, R.G. Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: Information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26, 100–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clay, G.R.; Smidt, R.K. Assessing the validity and reliability of descriptor variables used in scenic highway analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 66, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golivets, M. Aesthetic Values of Forest Landscapes. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Master’s Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden, 2011. no. 177. Available online: https://stud.epsi-lon.slu.se/3203/1/Golivets_M_110902 (accessed on 7 December 2020).
- Panagopoulos, T. Linking forestry, sustainability and aesthetics. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2485–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fumagalli, N.; Maccarini, M.; Rovelli, R.; Berto, R.; Senes, G. An exploratory study of users’ preference for different planting combinations along rural greenways. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, R.; Zhao, J.; Meitner, M.J.; Hu, Y.; Xu, X. Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogt, J. Urban Forests: Biophysical Features and Benefits. Encycl. World’s Biomes 2020, 5, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, S.S.; Innes, J.L.; Meitner, M. Public awareness of aesthetic and other forest values associated with sustainable forest management: A cross-cultural comparison among the public in four countries. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 150, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nowak, D.J.; Hirabayashi, S.; Doyle, M.; McGovern, M.; Pasher, J. Air pollution removal by urban forests in Canada and its effect on air quality and human health. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyrväinen, L.; Pauleit, S.; Seeland, K.; De Vries, S. Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In Urban Forests and Trees; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 81–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De la Fuente de Val, G.; Atauri, J.A.; de Lucio, J.V. Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 77, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonald, G.T.; Lane, M.B. Converging global indicators for sustainable forest management. For. Policy Econ. 2004, 6, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gough, A.D.; Innes, J.L.; Allen, S.D. Development of common indicators of sustainable forest management. Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8, 425–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paudyal, R.; Stein, T.V.; Ober, H.K.; Swisher, M.E.; Jokela, E.J.; Adams, D.C. Recreationists’ perceptions of scenic beauty and satisfaction at a public forest managed for endangered wildlife. Forests 2018, 9, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dronova, I. Environmental heterogeneity as a bridge between ecosystem service and visual quality objectives in management, planning and design. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 163, 90–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fathi, S.; Sajadzadeh, H.; Sheshkal, F.M.; Aram, F.; Pinter, G.; Felde, I.; Mosavi, A. The role of urban morphology design on enhancing physical activity and public health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, B.; Hauer, R.J.; Xu, C. Effects of design proportion and distribution of color in urban and suburban green space planning to visual aesthetics quality. Forests 2020, 11, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tveit, M.S. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2882–2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Velarde, M.D.; Fry, G.; Tveit, M. Health effects of viewing landscapes—Landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolf, I.D.; Wohlfart, T. Walking, hiking and running in parks: A multidisciplinary assessment of health and well-being benefits. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 130, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Othman, N.; Mohamed, N.; Ariffin, M.H. Landscape Aesthetic Values and Visiting Performance in Natural Outdoor Environment. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 202, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Todorova, A.; Asakawa, S.; Aikoh, T. Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 69, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akbar, K.F.; Hale, W.H.G.; Headley, A.D. Assessment of scenic beauty of the roadside vegetation in northern England. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyrväinen, L.; Silvennoinen, H.; Kolehmainen, O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2003, 1, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beygi Heidarlou, H.; Banj Shafiei, A.; Erfanian, M.; Tayyebi, A.; Alijanpour, A. Effects of preservation policy on land use changes in Iranian Northern Zagros forests. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 76–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karuppannan, S.; Baharuddin, Z.M.; Sivam, A.; Daniels, C.B. Urban green space and urban biodiversity: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. J. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 7, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, R.; Zhao, J.; Liu, Z. Consensus in visual preferences: The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zijlema, W.L.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Cirach, M.; Gidlow, C.; Kruize, H.; Grazuleviciene, R.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Litt, J.S. Understanding correlates of neighborhood aesthetic ratings: A European-based Four City comparison. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 47, 126523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahraoui, Y.; Clauzel, C.; Foltête, J.C. Spatial modelling of landscape aesthetic potential in urban-rural fringes. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 623–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hermes, J.; Albert, C.; von Haaren, C. Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerebel, A.; Gélinas, N.; Déry, S.; Voigt, B.; Munson, A. Landscape aesthetic modelling using Bayesian networks: Conceptual framework and participatory indicator weighting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 185, 258–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalivoda, O.; Vojar, J.; Skřivanová, Z.; Zahradník, D. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents’ characteristics. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 137, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schirpke, U.; Altzinger, A.; Leitinger, G.; Tasser, E. Change from agricultural to touristic use: Effects on the aesthetic value of landscapes over the last 150 years. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 187, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Li, M.; Zhang, X.; Song, L. Modeling the scenic beauty of autumnal tree color at the landscape scale: A case study of Purple Mountain, Nanjing, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 47, 126526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jean-Christophe, F.; Jens, I.; Nicolas, B. Coupling crowd-sourced imagery and visibility modelling to identify landscape preferences at the panorama level. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 197, 103756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruban, D.A.; Sallam, E.S.; Ermolaev, V.A.; Yashalova, N.N. Aesthetic Value of Colluvial Blocks in Geosite-Based Tourist Destinations: Evidence from SW Russia. Geosciences 2020, 10, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Othman, J. Assessing Scenic Beauty of Nature-based Landscapes of Fraser’s Hill. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2015, 30, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodríguez-Entrena, M.; Colombo, S.; Arriaza, M. The landscape of olive groves as a driver of the rural economy. Land Use Policy 2017, 65, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battisti, L.; Corsini, F.; Gusmerotti, N.M.; Larcher, F. Management and perception of Metropolitan Natura 2000 Sites: A case study of La Mandria Park (Turin, Italy). Sustainability 2019, 11, 6169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kiley, H.M.; Ainsworth, G.B.; van Dongen, W.F.D.; Weston, M.A. Variation in public perceptions and attitudes towards terrestrial ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 590–591, 440–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carlson, A. Contemporary environmental aesthetics and the requirements of environmentalism. Environ. Values 2010, 19, 289–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robert, G.; Sullivan, M.M. Documenting America’s Scenic Treasures: The National Park Service Visual Resource Inventory Documenting America’s Scenic Treasures: The National Park Service Visual Resource Inventory Submitted by National Association of Environmental Professionals Annual Conference, (April 2016). Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301698961 (accessed on 30 October 2020).
- Ribe, R.G. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista views: The interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2005, 73, 277–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, Y.H.; Roscoe, C.J. Preference for site conservation in relation to on-site biodiversity and perceived site attributes: An on-site survey of unmanaged urban greenery in a tropical city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 28, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swetnam, R.D.; Harrison-Curran, S.K.; Smith, G.R. Quantifying visual landscape quality in rural Wales: A GIS-enabled method for extensive monitoring of a valued cultural ecosystem service. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 451–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.Y.; Seo, J.I.; Kim, K.N.; Lee, Y.; Kweon, H.; Kim, J. Application of viewshed and spatial aesthetic analyses to forest practices for Mountain scenery Improvement in the Republic of Korea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, M.; Schroth, O. Assessment of Aesthetic Preferences in Relation to Vegetation-Created Enclosure in Chinese Urban Parks: A Case Study of Shenzhen Litchi Park. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Subiza-Pérez, M.; Hauru, K.; Korpela, K.; Haapala, A.; Lehvävirta, S. Perceived Environmental Aesthetic Qualities Scale (PEAQS)—A self-report tool for the evaluation of green-blue spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 43, 126383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khachatryan, H.; Rihn, A.; Hansen, G.; Clem, T. Landscape Aesthetics and Maintenance Perceptions: Assessing the Relationship between Homeowners’ Visual Attention and Landscape Care Knowledge. Land Use Policy 2020, 95, 104645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, C. Quantifying the aesthetic benefits of urban forestry. Urban For. Urban Green. 2003, 1, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobster, P.H.; Ribe, R.G.; Palmer, J.F. Themes and trends in visual assessment research: Introduction to the Landscape and Urban Planning special collection on the visual assessment of landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 191, 103635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, J.F.; Hoffman, R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, J.; Honjo, T.; Zhang, K.; Furuya, K. Using virtual reality to assess landscape: A comparative study between on-site survey and virtual reality of aesthetic preference and landscape cognition. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Junge, X.; Schüpbach, B.; Walter, T.; Schmid, B.; Lindemann-Matthies, P. Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 133, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martín, B.; Ortega, E.; Martino, P.; Otero, I. Inferring landscape change from differences in landscape character between the current and a reference situation. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 90, 584–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swanwick, C. Landscape character assessment. In Guidance for England and Scotland; Countryside Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage: Edinburgh, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, D.; Gao, C.; Li, L.; Van Eetvelde, V. Multi-scaled identification of landscape character types and areas in Lushan National Park and its fringes, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 201, 103844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, S.H. Landscape assessment for stream regulation works in a watershed using the analytic network process (ANP). Sustainability 2019, 11, 1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Atik, M.; Işıklı, R.C.; Ortaçeşme, V. Clusters of landscape characters as a way of communication in characterisation: A study from side, Turkey. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 182, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fry, G.; Tveit, M.S.; Ode, Å.; Velarde, M.D. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2009, 9, 933–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, A. Dynamics of integrating landscape values in landscape character assessment: The hidden dominance of the objective outsider. Landsc. Res. 2016, 41, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, G.; Zhang, B. Identification of landscape character types for trans-regional integration in the Wuling Mountain multi-ethnic area of southwest China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 162, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, J.F. The contribution of a GIS-based landscape assessment model to a scientifically rigorous approach to visual impact assessment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De La Fuente De Val, G.; Mühlhauser, S.H. Visual quality: An examination of a south american mediterranean landscape, andean foothills east of santiago (chile). Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauru, K.; Koskinen, S.; Kotze, D.J.; Lehvävirta, S. The effects of decaying logs on the aesthetic experience and acceptability of urban forests—Implications for forest management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 123, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karasov, O.; Vieira, A.A.B.; Külvik, M.; Chervanyov, I. Landscape coherence revisited: GIS-based mapping in relation to scenic values and preferences estimated with geolocated social media data. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 111, 105973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ode, Å.; Tveit, M.; Fry, G. Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landsc. Res. 2008, 33, 89–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polat, A.T. Visual Quality Assessment Methods in Landscape Architecture. In Proceedings of the 19th International Academic Conference, Florence, Italy, 16 September 2015; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282665755 (accessed on 16 December 2020).
- Rosley, M.S.F.; Rahman, S.R.A.; Lamit, H. Biophilia Theory Revisited: Experts and Non-experts Perception on Aesthetic Quality of Ecological Landscape. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 153, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tveit, M.; Ode, Å.; Fry, G. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc. Res. 2006, 31, 229–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y.; Kim, E.J. Differences of Restorative Effects While Viewing Urban Landscapes and Green Landscapes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vukomanovic, J.; Orr, B.J. Landscape aesthetics and the scenic drivers of amenity migration in the new West: Naturalness, visual scale, and complexity. Land 2014, 3, 390–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Swetnam, R.D.; Tweed, F.S. A tale of two landscapes: Transferring landscape quality metrics from Wales to Iceland. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 565–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Zhao, J.; Meitner, M.J. Urban woodland understory characteristics in relation to aesthetic and recreational preference. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 24, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badach, J.; Raszeja, E. Developing a framework for the implementation of landscape and greenspace indicators in sustainable urban planning. Waterfront landscape management: Case studies in Gdańsk, Poznań and Bristol. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hegetschweiler, K.T.; Plum, C.; Fischer, C.; Brändli, U.B.; Ginzler, C.; Hunziker, M. Towards a comprehensive social and natural scientific forest-recreation monitoring instrument—A prototypical approach. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 167, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-sharaa, A.; Adam, M.; Siddiq, A.; Nordin, A.; Alhasan, A.; Mundher, R.; Zaid, O. Enhancing Wayfinding Performance in Existing Healthcare Facilities Using Virtual Reality Environments to Revise the Distribution of Way-Showing Devices. Buildings 2022, 12, 790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Benefit of Urban-Forest Aesthetics | Descriptions | References |
---|---|---|
Health | H1. Reduced stress H2. Improved attention capacity H3. Physical and psychological well-being H4. Walking motivation and further physical activity H5. Behavioral improvements that enhance the mood H3. Enhanced disease recovery, physical well-being of the elderly | [10,13,14,16,17,23,24,25,26,34,35,36,37,38,39] |
Tourism | T1. Visitor attractions T2. Green tourism industry T3. Photographer attractions T4. Loyalty to a place and desire to return T5. Increased appeal of tourist attractions | [1,2,4,10,11,28,34,40,41,42,43,44,45] |
Economy | E1. Increased economic revenue E2. Increased neighboring real-estate prices E3. Revenue generated by urban-forest use fees E4. Increased monetary value of urban forested areas | [10,14,16,45,56,57] |
Protection | P1. Conservation of biodiversity P2. Protection of the natural cultural heritage P3. Preservation of unmanaged urban forest areas | [7,17,18,21,28,31,34,35,46,47,48,49,51,52] |
Planning | L1. Sustainable management L2. Improved aesthetics of cities L3. Evaluating the societal quality of life L4. A significant determinant of planning and urban design | [7,10,14,18,48,49,50,53,54,55]. |
Objectivist Paradigm | Subjectivist Paradigm |
---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expert Approach | Perception Approach | Converging Approach |
---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variables | Synonyms | References | |
---|---|---|---|
B-1 | Urban-Forest Visual Composition | ||
Coherence | Unity, Uniformity, Balance, Harmony, Fittingness, Compatibility. | [4,9,12,18,49,54,55,60,66,67,71,72,73,74,75,76,77] | |
Complexity | Diversity, Variety, Richness, Heterogeneity. | [4,9,12,18,22,37,38,43,54,55,60,67,71,73,74,75,76,77,78,79] | |
Legibility | Clearness, Visual Access. | [18,54,71,76] | |
Mystery | Explore the Place, Inferred Exploration. | [18,55,71,75,76] | |
B-2 | Urban-Forest Visual Sense | ||
Openness | Visibility, Enclosure, Visual Scale, Perspective, Vastness. | [12,23,54,55,66,67,74,76,77,79] | |
Uniqueness | Imageability, Vividness, Sense of Place, Distinctive, Place identity, Memorable, Attractiveness, Familiarity, Novelty. | [4,9,37,38,43,47,49,55,60,67,74,75,77] | |
B-3 | Urban-Forest Visual Condition | ||
Cleanliness | Stewardship, Order and Care, Upkeep, Maintenance, Safety. | [4,12,56,67,74,76,77] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mundher, R.; Abu Bakar, S.; Maulan, S.; Mohd Yusof, M.J.; Al-Sharaa, A.; Aziz, A.; Gao, H. Aesthetic Quality Assessment of Landscapes as a Model for Urban Forest Areas: A Systematic Literature Review. Forests 2022, 13, 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13070991
Mundher R, Abu Bakar S, Maulan S, Mohd Yusof MJ, Al-Sharaa A, Aziz A, Gao H. Aesthetic Quality Assessment of Landscapes as a Model for Urban Forest Areas: A Systematic Literature Review. Forests. 2022; 13(7):991. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13070991
Chicago/Turabian StyleMundher, Riyadh, Shamsul Abu Bakar, Suhardi Maulan, Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof, Ammar Al-Sharaa, Azlizam Aziz, and Hangyu Gao. 2022. "Aesthetic Quality Assessment of Landscapes as a Model for Urban Forest Areas: A Systematic Literature Review" Forests 13, no. 7: 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13070991
APA StyleMundher, R., Abu Bakar, S., Maulan, S., Mohd Yusof, M. J., Al-Sharaa, A., Aziz, A., & Gao, H. (2022). Aesthetic Quality Assessment of Landscapes as a Model for Urban Forest Areas: A Systematic Literature Review. Forests, 13(7), 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13070991