Skip to main content
Log in

Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey)

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey) is the member of European Association of Historic Towns and Regions. The aim of this study was to reveal the visual richness of the town; to identify the relationship between landscape spatial pattern and visual quality of the landscape and to offer some suggestions for the future planning in regarding to these visual beauties. The visual quality assessment method was used in this study. The results of the study revealed three landscape types that have the highest visual quality. Among those, the highest one is urban scenery 3 (US3; VQP = 5.9400), the second is geological structure scenery 5 (GSS 5; VQP = 5.9200) and the third natural scenery 3 (NS3; VQP = 5.9133). Visual quality assessment showed that urban pattern, geological structure and natural resources of the region also have visual value. The relationships between landscape spatial pattern and visual quality of landscape indicated that certain characteristics of landscape affected the quality. For instance, as the texture level decreased in natural landscapes and as the green areas increased in geological structure, visual preferences ratio increased. Some suggestions were also made regarding the visual resources use in the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acar, C., & Kurdoğlu, B. Ç. (2005). Visual quality evaluation in Kaçkar Mointains. Sum on protected natural areas. Isparta, Turkey: Süleyman Demirel University September 8–10, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acar, C., Kurdoğlu, B., Kurdoğlu, O., & ve Acar, H. (2006). Public preferences for visual quality and management in Kaçkar Mountains National Park (Turkey). The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13(6), 499–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amir, S., & Gidalizon, E. (1990). Expert-based method fort he evaluation of visual absorption capacity of the landscape. Journal of Environmental Management, 30, 251–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angileri, V., & Toccolini, A. (1993). The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 24(1–4), 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anonim. (2005a). Kemaliye İlçesi İklim Verileri (1984–1990). Ankara: Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, Araştırma ve Bilgi İşlem Daire Başkanlığı.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonim. (2005b). 2000 Genel Nüfus Sayımı, Nüfusun Sosyal ve Ekonomik Nitelikleri, 24 Erzincan, T. C. Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4), 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohwill (Eds.) Behaviour and the Natural Environment (pp. 39–83). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(4), 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt, W. E., Patterson, M. E., & Noe, F. P. (1994). Identifying nad predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29(2–39), 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hands, D. E., & Brown, R. D. (2002). Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(1), 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, R. B., & McCarthy, M. M. (1988). Change in the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(3–4), 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, R. B., & Stewart, W. P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(2), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (1999). Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty-A prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecology , 14(2), 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, P. S. (1981). Assessing landscape attractiveness: A comparative test of two new method. Applied Geography, 1, 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment & Behavior, 21(5), 509–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahan, F. (2003). Landscape planning of Erzurum-Rize highway cooridor and its opportunity for usebility as landscape view road (p. 210). Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate College of Atatürk University, Erzurum.

  • Karahan, F., & Yılmaz, H. (2004a). Evaluation of Erzurum-Rize hihgway cooridor for ecotourism purposes. II. International tourism, environment and culture symposium pp. 225–262. İzmir, Turkey: Proceeding Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karahan, F., & Yılmaz, H. (2004b). (203–205). Visual quality analysis of Erzurum highway cooridor. Landscape Architecture 2. Congress. İzmir, Turkey: Proceeding Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, C. L. (2001). Our visual landscape: Managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4), 239–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koç, N., & Şahin, Ş. (1999). Urban Landscape Planning. University of Ankara, Faculty of Agriculture, No: 1509 (p. 210), Ankara.

  • Lambe, R. A. (1986). Commercial highway landscape reclamation: A participatory approach. Landscape and Planning, 24(4), 353–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meitner, M. J. (2004). Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: Relating perceptual judgments to location. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misgav, A. (2000). Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mok, J., Landphair, H. C., & Naderi, J. R. (2005). Landscape improvement impacts on roadside safety in Texas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müderrisoğlu, H., Eroğlu, E., Özkan, Ş., & ve Ak, K. (2006). Visual perception of tree forms. Building and Environment, 41(6), 796–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribe, R. G. (1994). Scenic beauty perceptions along the ROS. Journal of Environmental Management, 42(3), 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, M. (2006). Validating the use of internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment-An empirical study from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer Jr, E. L., & Brush, R. O. (1977). How to measure preference for photographs af natural landscapes. Landscape Planning, 4, 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuttleworth, S. (1980a). The use of photographs as an environment presantation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11(1), 61–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuttleworth, S. (1980b). The evaluation of landscape quality. Landscape Research, 5(1), 14–1518–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, H. W., & Daniel, T. C. (1980). Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors. Environment & Behavior, 12(3), 349–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, W. C., & Lovell, S. T. (2006). Improving the visual quality of commercial development at the rural–urban fringe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(1–2), 152–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahvanainen, L., Ihalainen, M., Hietala-Koivu, R., Kolehmainen, O., Tyrväinen, L., Nousiainen, O., & Helenius, J. (2002). Measures of the, EU agri-environmental protection scheme (GAEPS) and their impacts on the visual acceptability of Finnish agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 66, 213–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzolova, G. V. (1995). An experiment in greenway analysis and assesment: The Danıbe River. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1–3), 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wherrett, J. R. (2000). Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landscape Research, 25(1), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, K. (1995). Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(2), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zohre Bulut.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bulut, Z., Yilmaz, H. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey). Environ Monit Assess 141, 121–129 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9882-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9882-0

Keywords

Navigation