Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Scenic Evaluation Techniques

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Coastal Scenery

Part of the book series: Coastal Research Library ((COASTALRL,volume 26))

  • 570 Accesses

Abstract

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.

Mountains are the beginning and the end of all natural scenery.

John Ruskin, Modern Painters, vol.3, Pt iv, v 29.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Appleton J (1975a) Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Trans Instit Brit Geog 66:120–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleton J (1975b) The experience of landscape. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur LM, Daniel TC, Boster RS (1977) Scenic assessment: an overview. Landsc Urban Plan 4:109–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit G, Comeau A (2005) Méditerranée. Les perspectives du Plan Bleu sur l’environnement et le développement. Editorial de l’Aube, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger J (1972) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jTUebm73IY

  • Bishop ID, Hulse DW (1994) Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems. Landsc Urban Plan 30:59–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brabyn L (1996) Landscape classification using GIS and National Digital Databases. Landsc Res 27:277–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady E (2003) Aesthetics of the natural environment. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs DJ, France J (1980) Landscape evaluation: a comparative study. J Environ Manag 10:263–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs J, Campbell K, Houlston I, Tudor C (2011) Seascape character assessment guidance for England, Scotland & Wales: Consultation Draft V1.2A. Natural England Commissioned, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhyoff GJ, Arndt LK (1981) Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct and indirect measurement methods. Landsc Plan 8:257–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhyoff GJ, Riesenmann MF (1979) Experimental manipulation of dimensionality in landscape preference judgements: a quantitative validation. Leis Sci 2:221–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhyoff GJ, Wellman JD (1980) The specification of a non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions. J Leis Res 12:257–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canter F (2002) Assessing the effects of input uncertainty in structural landscape. Inst J Geog Inform Sc 16(2):129–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson AA (1977) On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landsc Plan 4:131–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CC – Countryside Commission (1987) Landscape assessment- a countryside commission approach. CCD, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • CC – Countryside Commission (1993) Countryside commission, landscape assessment guidance. CCD, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • CCW – Countryside Council for Wales (1996) The Welsh landscape: our inheritance and its future protection and enhancement. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor

    Google Scholar 

  • CCW (2001) The LANDMAP information system, 1st edn. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark JR (1977) Coastal ecosystems management: a technical manual for the conservation of coastal zone resources. Wiley-Interscience, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark E, Clark TL (2009) Isolating connections – connecting isolations. Geogr Ann Ser B 91:311–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark BD, Gilad A, Bisset R, Tomlinson P (1984) Perspectives in environmental impact assessment. Springer, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cocklin C, Harte M, Hay J (1990) Resource assessment for recreation and tourism: a New Zealand example. Landsc Urban Plan 19:291–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CoE (2000) Council of Europe European landscape convention. Council of Europe, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Coventry-Solihull-Warwickshire (1971) A strategy for the sub-region. Supplementary report 4 – evaluation. GVA Grimley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft RS (1975) The landscape component approach to landscape evaluation. Trans Inst Brit Geogr 66:124–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):185–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel TC (2001) Visual landscape planning in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan 54(1–4):267–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson J, Wibberley G (1977) Planning and the rural environment. Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearden P (1985) Focus on landscape aesthetics. Can Geogr 29(3):262–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1929) Experience with nature. W W Norton & Co, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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):57–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 141:68–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckbo G (1969) The landscape we see. McGraw Hill Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Eletheriadis N, Tsalikidis I, Manos B (1990) Coastal landscape preference evaluation. A comparison among tourists in Greece. Environ Manag 14(4):475–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 215–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Ergin A, Williams AT, Micallef A (2006) Coastal scenery: appreciation and evaluation. J Coast Res 22(2):958–964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulks S (1999) Charlotte Grey. Hutchinson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenneman NM (1919) The circumference of geography. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 9(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fines KD (1968) Landscape evaluation. A research project in East Sussex. Reg Stud 2:41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie W (1970) Landscape evaluation. Seminar paper. National countryside classification structure. Landscape Research Group, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gombrich E (1965) Visual discovery through art. In: Wilkinson J, Hogg R (eds) Theories of art and beauty. Open University Press, Lincoln, pp 505–521

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 65–91

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):257–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartshorne R (1939) The nature of geography: a critical survey of current thought in the light of the past. Assoc Am Geogr 29(3):173–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey N, Caton B (2010) Coastal management in Australia, OUP, 342pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson E, de Lambert R (1992) Landscape values and resource management, report to Min. for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitler A (1974) Mein Kampf, Hutchinson, 629pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Houston JR (2013) The economic value of beaches – a 2013 update. Shore Beach 81(1):3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Houlahan J, Findlay S (2004) Estimating the “critical” distance at which adjacent landuse degrades wetland water and sediment quality. Landsc Ecol 19(6):677–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hungerford MW (1889) Molly Bawn. Dodo Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • IEMA (2011) Special report – the state of environmental impact assessment practice in the UK. IEMA, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacques DL (1980) Landscape appraisal: the case for a subjective theory. J Environ Manag 10:107–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989a) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989b) The visual environment: public participation in design and planning. J Soc Issue 45(1):59–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye R, Alder J (1999) Coastal planning and management. E & FN Spon, London. 375pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroh PD, Gimblett RH (1992) Comparing live experience with pictures in articulating landscape preference. Landsc Res 17(2):5869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 217pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Leatherman SP (2016) www.drbeach.org

  • 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 16:23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold LB (1969) Quantitative comparisons of some aesthetic factors among rivers. US. Geological Survey, Circ. 620. Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis PF, Lowenthal D, Yi-Fu T (1973) Visual blight in America. Association of American Geographers, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • LI – Landscape Institute (2016) Landscape character assessment technical information note 08/2015 February, 18pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Linton DL (1968) The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scott Geogr Mag 84:219–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Linton DL (1982) Visual assessments of natural landscapes. W Geogr Ser 20:97–116

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 44:177–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luijk A (2012) Aesthetics as a way of knowing… or experiencing. Oslo, 9th January

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons E (1983) Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environ Behav 15(4):487–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macaulay (2014) Review of existing methods of landscape assessment. www.macaulay.ac.uk/ccw/task-two/evaluate.html. Accessed 30 Aug 2016

  • Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (2009) Legislation.gov.uk. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/contents

  • 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 83–90

    Google Scholar 

  • National Archives (2009) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/contents

  • NE (2012) Natural England. An approach to seascape character assessment. NECR

    Google Scholar 

  • NE (2014) Natural England, An approach to landscape character asessment. NECR

    Google Scholar 

  • Olwig K (2003) Landscape: the Lowenthal legacy. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(4):871–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer JF, Hoffman RE (2001) Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc Urban Plan 54:149–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1155–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penning-Rowsel EC (1982) A public preference evaluation of landscape quality. Reg Stud 16:97–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penning-Rowsell EC (1989) Landscape evaluation in practise – a survey of local authorities. Landsc Res 14(2):35–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penning-Rowsell EC, Lowenthal D (1986) Landscape meanings and values. HarperCollins Publishers, London, 137pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper K (2005) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge, London, 545pp

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):637–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Relf EC (1976) Places and placelessness. Pion, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson DG, Laurie IC, Wager JF, Traill AL (1976) Landscape evolution: the landscape evaluation research project 1970–75. Manchester University, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 67:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sewell WRD, Foster HD (1971) Environmental revival- promise and performance. Environ Behav 3:123–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer EL, Hamilton JF, Schmidt EA (1969) Natural landscape preferences; a predictive model. J Leis Res 1(1):1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer EL, Meitz L (1970) It seems possible to quanify scenic beauty in photographs. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper NE-162

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Station

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheail J (1984) Nature Reserves, National Parks and post war reconstruction in Britain. Environ Conserv 11:29–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuttleworth S (1980a) The evaluation of landscape quality. Landsc Res 5:14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuttleworth S (1980b) The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. J Environ Manag 11:61–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith PGR, Theberge JB (1987) Evaluating natural areas using multiple criteria: theory and practice. Environ Manag 11(4):447–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith BJ, Warke PA, Whalley WB (2002) Landscape development, collective amnesia and the need for integration in geomorphological research. Area 33(4):409–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starr G (2013) Feeling beauty: the neuroscience of aesthetic experiences. MIT Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steers JA (1944) Coastal preservation and planning. Geogr J 104:7–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanwick C (2002) Landscape character assessment guidance for England and Scotland. The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Teale EW (1966) Wandering through winter. Dodd, Mead and Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • The Landscape Institute (2011) Guidelines for landscape and visual assessment, 3rd edn. 145pp

    Google Scholar 

  • TLE (2013) The landscape institute. Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment. Landscape Institute, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuan YF (1977) Space and place: the perspectives of experience. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 235pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Tudor C (2014) An approach to landscape character and assessment. Natural England, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner J (1987) Application of landscape values: a planner’s view. Trans Inst Br Geogr 66:156–161

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1149–1162

    Google Scholar 

  • UNWTO (2008) United Nations world tourism organization: tourism highlights. UNWTO, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman JD, Buyhoff GJ (1980) Effects of regional similarity of landscape preferences. J Env Manag 11:105–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams AT (1986) Landscape aesthetics of the river Wye. Landsc Res 11(2):25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams AT, Lavalle CD (1990) Coastal landscape evaluation and photography. J Coast Res 6(1):1011–1020

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 62:3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeomans WC (1986) In: Smardon RC, Palmer JF, Felleman JP (eds) Foundations for visual project analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zube EH, Pitt DG (1981) Cross cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landsc Plan 8:69–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zube EH, Sell JL (1986) Human dimensions of environmental change. J Plan Lit 1(2):162–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 171pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG (1982) Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landsc Plan 9:1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Architecture, Computing and Engineering, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Swansea, Wales, UK

    Allan T. Williams

  2. CICA NOVA, Nova Universidad de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Allan T. Williams

Authors
  1. Allan T. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departamentos de Física y Biología, Universidad del Atlantico, Barranquilla, Atlantico, Colombia

    Nelson Rangel-Buitrago

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Williams, A.T. (2019). Some Scenic Evaluation Techniques. In: Rangel-Buitrago, N. (eds) Coastal Scenery. Coastal Research Library, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78878-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation