Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 141, Issue 1–3, pp 121–129 | Cite as

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

  • Zohre Bulut
  • Hasan Yilmaz


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.


Visual quality assessment Turkey Visual quality of landscape Kemaliye 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anonim. (2005a). Kemaliye İlçesi İklim Verileri (1984–1990). Ankara: Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, Araştırma ve Bilgi İşlem Daire Başkanlığı.Google Scholar
  6. Anonim. (2005b). 2000 Genel Nüfus Sayımı, Nüfusun Sosyal ve Ekonomik Nitelikleri, 24 Erzincan, T. C. Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4), 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hands, D. E., & Brown, R. D. (2002). Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(1), 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hull, R. B., & McCarthy, M. M. (1988). Change in the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(3–4), 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hull, R. B., & Stewart, W. P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(2), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kane, P. S. (1981). Assessing landscape attractiveness: A comparative test of two new method. Applied Geography, 1, 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment & Behavior, 21(5), 509–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Karahan, F., & Yılmaz, H. (2004b). (203–205). Visual quality analysis of Erzurum highway cooridor. Landscape Architecture 2. Congress. İzmir, Turkey: Proceeding Book.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koç, N., & Şahin, Ş. (1999). Urban Landscape Planning. University of Ankara, Faculty of Agriculture, No: 1509 (p. 210), Ankara.Google Scholar
  27. Lambe, R. A. (1986). Commercial highway landscape reclamation: A participatory approach. Landscape and Planning, 24(4), 353–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Misgav, A. (2000). Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Müderrisoğlu, H., Eroğlu, E., Özkan, Ş., & ve Ak, K. (2006). Visual perception of tree forms. Building and Environment, 41(6), 796–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ribe, R. G. (1994). Scenic beauty perceptions along the ROS. Journal of Environmental Management, 42(3), 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shafer Jr, E. L., & Brush, R. O. (1977). How to measure preference for photographs af natural landscapes. Landscape Planning, 4, 237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Shuttleworth, S. (1980b). The evaluation of landscape quality. Landscape Research, 5(1), 14–1518–20.Google Scholar
  38. Schroeder, H. W., & Daniel, T. C. (1980). Predicting the scenic quality of forest road corridors. Environment & Behavior, 12(3), 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Tzolova, G. V. (1995). An experiment in greenway analysis and assesment: The Danıbe River. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1–3), 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wherrett, J. R. (2000). Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques. Landscape Research, 25(1), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of AgricultureAtatürk UniversityErzurumTurkey

Personalised recommendations