Some Scenic Evaluation Techniques

  • Allan T. Williams
Part of the Coastal Research Library book series (COASTALRL, volume 26)


The quest for an objective analysis of coastal scenery ranging from top class to very poor, which includes the physical environment and incites an aesthetic response from the viewer, has existed for many years and a variety of approaches have been employed. These range from utilizing photographs as surrogates for locations, to compiling lists of what are deemed to be the important physical and anthropogenic landscape parameters, either from field studies, Ordnance Survey map squares, or via questionnaires of public attitudes and perception, etc. The bulk of these studies have been aimed at producing numbers that can be attributed to relevant assessment parameters in an attempt to quantify landscapes. These include physical items, such as, relief and slope, which relate to mountains, hills, lowlands, as well as human induced elements, such as, towns, industrialized areas, and farmed landscapes. The spectrum covered by these techniques tends to be based on subjective assessments of landscape quality by individuals/groups, or by techniques using landscape physical attributes as surrogates for personal perception.


Scene Evaluation Physical Landscape Properties Scene Assessment Landscape Character Assessment Buhyoff 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Appleton J (1975a) Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Trans Instit Brit Geog 66:120–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleton J (1975b) The experience of landscape. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur LM, Daniel TC, Boster RS (1977) Scenic assessment: an overview. Landsc Urban Plan 4:109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoit G, Comeau A (2005) Méditerranée. Les perspectives du Plan Bleu sur l’environnement et le développement. Editorial de l’Aube, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop ID, Hulse DW (1994) Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems. Landsc Urban Plan 30:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brabyn L (1996) Landscape classification using GIS and National Digital Databases. Landsc Res 27:277–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brady E (2003) Aesthetics of the natural environment. Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  8. Briggs DJ, France J (1980) Landscape evaluation: a comparative study. J Environ Manag 10:263–275Google Scholar
  9. Briggs J, Campbell K, Houlston I, Tudor C (2011) Seascape character assessment guidance for England, Scotland & Wales: Consultation Draft V1.2A. Natural England Commissioned, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Buhyoff GJ, Arndt LK (1981) Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct and indirect measurement methods. Landsc Plan 8:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buhyoff GJ, Riesenmann MF (1979) Experimental manipulation of dimensionality in landscape preference judgements: a quantitative validation. Leis Sci 2:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buhyoff GJ, Wellman JD (1980) The specification of a non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions. J Leis Res 12:257–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Canter F (2002) Assessing the effects of input uncertainty in structural landscape. Inst J Geog Inform Sc 16(2):129–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlson AA (1977) On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landsc Plan 4:131–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CC – Countryside Commission (1987) Landscape assessment- a countryside commission approach. CCD, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  16. CC – Countryside Commission (1993) Countryside commission, landscape assessment guidance. CCD, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  17. CCW – Countryside Council for Wales (1996) The Welsh landscape: our inheritance and its future protection and enhancement. Countryside Council for Wales, BangorGoogle Scholar
  18. CCW (2001) The LANDMAP information system, 1st edn. Countryside Council for Wales, BangorGoogle Scholar
  19. Clark JR (1977) Coastal ecosystems management: a technical manual for the conservation of coastal zone resources. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark E, Clark TL (2009) Isolating connections – connecting isolations. Geogr Ann Ser B 91:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clark BD, Gilad A, Bisset R, Tomlinson P (1984) Perspectives in environmental impact assessment. Springer, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cocklin C, Harte M, Hay J (1990) Resource assessment for recreation and tourism: a New Zealand example. Landsc Urban Plan 19:291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. CoE (2000) Council of Europe European landscape convention. Council of Europe, FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  24. Countryside Act of 1968, Chapter 41: printed in England by Harry Pitchforth, controller of her Majesty’s Stationery Office and Queen’s Printer of Acts of Parliament, 64pp (371998)Google Scholar
  25. Coventry-Solihull-Warwickshire (1971) A strategy for the sub-region. Supplementary report 4 – evaluation. GVA Grimley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Croft RS (1975) The landscape component approach to landscape evaluation. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 66:124–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dakin S (2003) There’s more to landscape than meets the eye: towards inclusive landscape assessment in resource and environmental management. Can Geogr 47(2):185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Daniel TC (2001) Visual landscape planning in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan 54(1–4):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Davidson J, Wibberley G (1977) Planning and the rural environment. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Dearden P (1985) Focus on landscape aesthetics. Can Geogr 29(3):262–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dewey J (1929) Experience with nature. W W Norton & Co, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dodds R, Kelman I (2008) How climate change is considered in sustainable tourism policies: a case of the Mediterranean Islands of Malta and Mallorca. Tour Rev Int 12(1):57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dupont L, Antrop M, Van Eetvelde V (2015) Does landscape related expertise influence the visual perception of landscape photographs? Implications for participatory landscape planning and management. Landsc Urban Plan 141:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Eckbo G (1969) The landscape we see. McGraw Hill Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Eletheriadis N, Tsalikidis I, Manos B (1990) Coastal landscape preference evaluation. A comparison among tourists in Greece. Environ Manag 14(4):475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ergin A, Williams AT, Micallef A, Karakaya ST (2002) An innovative approach to coastal scenic evaluation. In: Ozhan E (ed) Beach management in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Medcoast/METU, Ankara, pp 215–226Google Scholar
  37. Ergin A, Williams AT, Micallef A (2006) Coastal scenery: appreciation and evaluation. J Coast Res 22(2):958–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Faulks S (1999) Charlotte Grey. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Fenneman NM (1919) The circumference of geography. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 9(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fines KD (1968) Landscape evaluation. A research project in East Sussex. Reg Stud 2:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gillespie W (1970) Landscape evaluation. Seminar paper. National countryside classification structure. Landscape Research Group, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Gombrich E (1965) Visual discovery through art. In: Wilkinson J, Hogg R (eds) Theories of art and beauty. Open University Press, Lincoln, pp 505–521Google Scholar
  43. Greenbie BB (1975) Problems of scale and context in assessing a generalized landscape for particular persons. In: Zube EH, Brush RO, Fabos JG (eds) Landscape assessment: values, perceptions and resources. Wiley, New York, pp 65–91Google Scholar
  44. Gulinck H, Mugica M, de Lucio JV, Atauri JA (2001) A framework for comparative landscape analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Madrid region (Spain). Landsc Urban Plan 55(4):257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hartshorne R (1939) The nature of geography: a critical survey of current thought in the light of the past. Assoc Am Geogr 29(3):173–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Harvey N, Caton B (2010) Coastal management in Australia, OUP, 342ppGoogle Scholar
  47. Henderson E, de Lambert R (1992) Landscape values and resource management, report to Min. for the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  48. Hitler A (1974) Mein Kampf, Hutchinson, 629ppGoogle Scholar
  49. Houston JR (2013) The economic value of beaches – a 2013 update. Shore Beach 81(1):3–11Google Scholar
  50. Houlahan J, Findlay S (2004) Estimating the “critical” distance at which adjacent landuse degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landsc Ecol 19(6):677–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hungerford MW (1889) Molly Bawn. Dodo Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. IEMA (2011) Special report – the state of environmental impact assessment practice in the UK. IEMA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Jacques DL (1980) Landscape appraisal: the case for a subjective theory. J Environ Manag 10:107–113Google Scholar
  54. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989a) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989b) The visual environment: public participation in design and planning. J Soc Issue 45(1):59–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kaye R, Alder J (1999) Coastal planning and management. E & FN Spon, London. 375ppGoogle Scholar
  57. Kroh PD, Gimblett RH (1992) Comparing live experience with pictures in articulating landscape preference. Landsc Res 17(2):5869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 217ppGoogle Scholar
  59. Leatherman SP (2016)
  60. Lee JT, Elton MJ, Thompson S (1999) The role of GIS in landscape assessment: using inter-based criteria for an area of the Chiltern Hills area of outstanding natural beauty. Land Use Policy 16:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Leopold LB (1969) Quantitative comparisons of some aesthetic factors among rivers. US. Geological Survey, Circ. 620. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. Lewis PF, Lowenthal D, Yi-Fu T (1973) Visual blight in America. Association of American Geographers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  63. LI – Landscape Institute (2016) Landscape character assessment technical information note 08/2015 February, 18ppGoogle Scholar
  64. Linton DL (1968) The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scott Geogr Mag 84:219–238Google Scholar
  65. Linton DL (1982) Visual assessments of natural landscapes. W Geogr Ser 20:97–116Google Scholar
  66. Lothian A (1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landsc Urban Plan 44:177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Luijk A (2012) Aesthetics as a way of knowing… or experiencing. Oslo, 9th JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  68. Lyons E (1983) Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environ Behav 15(4):487–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Macaulay (2014) Review of existing methods of landscape assessment. Accessed 30 Aug 2016
  70. Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (2009)
  71. Morgan R, Williams AT (1995) Socio-demographic parameters and user priorities at Gower Beaches, UK. In: Healy MG, Doody JP (eds) Directions in European Coastal Management. EUCC & Samara Publishing, London, pp 83–90Google Scholar
  72. NE (2012) Natural England. An approach to seascape character assessment. NECRGoogle Scholar
  73. NE (2014) Natural England, An approach to landscape character asessment. NECRGoogle Scholar
  74. Olwig K (2003) Landscape: the Lowenthal legacy. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(4):871–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Palmer JF, Hoffman RE (2001) Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc Urban Plan 54:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pendleton L, Martin N, Webster DG (2001) Perceptions of environmental quality: a survey study of beach use and perceptions in Los Angeles County. Mar Pollut Bull 42(11):1155–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Penning-Rowsel EC (1982) A public preference evaluation of landscape quality. Reg Stud 16:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Penning-Rowsell EC (1989) Landscape evaluation in practise – a survey of local authorities. Landsc Res 14(2):35–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Penning-Rowsell EC, Lowenthal D (1986) Landscape meanings and values. HarperCollins Publishers, London, 137ppGoogle Scholar
  80. Popper K (2005) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge, London, 545ppGoogle Scholar
  81. Priskin J (2001) Assessment of natural resources for nature-based tourism: the case of the Central Coast Region of Western Australia. Tour Manag 22(6):637–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Relf EC (1976) Places and placelessness. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  83. Robinson DG, Laurie IC, Wager JF, Traill AL (1976) Landscape evolution: the landscape evaluation research project 1970–75. Manchester University, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  84. Saeidi S, Mohammadzadeh M, Salmanmahiny A, Mirkarimi SH (2017) Performance evaluation of multiple methods for landscape aesthetic suitability mapping: a comparative study between multi-criteria evaluation, logistic regression and multi-layer perceptron neural network. Land Use Policy 67:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sewell WRD, Foster HD (1971) Environmental revival- promise and performance. Environ Behav 3:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Shafer EL, Hamilton JF, Schmidt EA (1969) Natural landscape preferences; a predictive model. J Leis Res 1(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Shafer EL, Meitz L (1970) It seems possible to quanify scenic beauty in photographs. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper NE-162Google Scholar
  88. Shafer, Elwood L., Jr., and Mietz, James. 1970. It seems possible to quantify scenic beauty in photographs. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-162. Upper Darby, Pa. Northeastern Forest Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
  89. Sheail J (1984) Nature Reserves, National Parks and post war reconstruction in Britain. Environ Conserv 11:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Shuttleworth S (1980a) The evaluation of landscape quality. Landsc Res 5:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shuttleworth S (1980b) The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. J Environ Manag 11:61–76Google Scholar
  92. Smith PGR, Theberge JB (1987) Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: theory and practice. Environ Manag 11(4):447–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Smith BJ, Warke PA, Whalley WB (2002) Landscape development, collective amnesia and the need for integration in geomorphological research. Area 33(4):409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Starr G (2013) Feeling beauty: the neuroscience of aesthetic experiences. MIT Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Steers JA (1944) Coastal preservation and planning. Geogr J 104:7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Swanwick C (2002) Landscape character assessment guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  97. Teale EW (1966) Wandering through winter. Dodd, Mead and Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  98. The Landscape Institute (2011) Guidelines for landscape and visual assessment, 3rd edn. 145ppGoogle Scholar
  99. TLE (2013) The landscape institute. Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment. Landscape Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  100. Tuan YF (1977) Space and place: the perspectives of experience. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 235ppGoogle Scholar
  101. Tudor C (2014) An approach to landscape character and assessment. Natural England, LondonGoogle Scholar
  102. Turner J (1987) Application of landscape values: a planner’s view. Trans Inst Br Geogr 66:156–161Google Scholar
  103. Unal O, Williams AT (1999) Beach visits and willingness to pay: Cesme peninsula, Turkey. In: Ozhan E (ed) Land Ocean interactions: monitoring coastal ecosystems. MEDCOAST – Middle East Technical University, Ankara, pp 1149–1162Google Scholar
  104. UNWTO (2008) United Nations world tourism organization: tourism highlights. UNWTO, MadridGoogle Scholar
  105. Wellman JD, Buyhoff GJ (1980) Effects of regional similarity of landscape preferences. J Env Manag 11:105–110Google Scholar
  106. Williams AT (1986) Landscape aesthetics of the river Wye. Landsc Res 11(2):25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Williams AT, Lavalle CD (1990) Coastal landscape evaluation and photography. J Coast Res 6(1):1011–1020Google Scholar
  108. Yamashita S (2002) Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: use of photo projection method to compare child and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japanese of a water environment. Landsc Plan 62:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Yeomans WC (1986) In: Smardon RC, Palmer JF, Felleman JP (eds) Foundations for visual project analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  110. Zube EH, Pitt DG (1981) Cross cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landsc Plan 8:69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zube EH, Sell JL (1986) Human dimensions of environmental change. J Plan Lit 1(2):162–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Zube EH, Pitt DG, Anderson TW (1974) Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the Southern Connecticut river valley. Institute for Management and Historic Environment, Amherst. No. R-74-1, 171ppGoogle Scholar
  113. Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG (1982) Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landsc Plan 9:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allan T. Williams
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Architecture, Computing and EngineeringUniversity of Wales, Trinity Saint DavidSwanseaUK
  2. 2.CICA NOVANova Universidad de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations