Coastal Scenery Assessment by Means of a Fuzzy Logic Approach

  • Ayşen ErginEmail author
Part of the Coastal Research Library book series (COASTALRL, volume 26)


Landscape is a major element affecting people’s life quality and coastal landscape evaluation is strongly rooted in the man-environment tradition. Coastal areas, all over the world, are under threat due to the conflicting requirements that rely on natural scenery of such as habitation, recreation, and industry. Since ‘coastal scenery’ is a natural resource, it has to be evaluated in an objective and quantitative way to provide a means of comparison against coastal activities and for environmental impact assessments. This chapter presents an evidence-based methodology called ‘Coastal Scenic Evaluation System (CSES)’. It is a technique that can be used not only for landscape preservation and protection, but also as scientific tool for envisaged coastal management and future development based upon plans formulated by an evidence-based approach. The results provide base-line information for a sound coastal management decision especially regarding intensive urban and industrial developments. CSES uses fuzzy logic to reduce subjectivity on decisions and obtain a quantitative evaluation of public survey research on 26 coastal scenic parameters having both physical and human perceptual characteristics. The weights of the scenic parameters were estimated by public survey questionnaires for Turkey, UK, Malta and Croatia and via consultations with coastal experts from the above mentioned four countries and Australia, Ireland, USA and Japan. Fuzzy logic mathematics was used to calculate a coastal scenic evaluation index (D) from the checklist of 26 scenic parameters by using the attributed weights of the parameters which enabled to categorize scenic values of the coastal areas into five distinct classes.


Coastal Scenery Scene Assessment Public Survey Scenic Value Mathematical Fuzzy Logic 
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 (1975) Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Trans Inst Br Geology 66:120–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BCR (British Council Report) (2003) Coastal scenic assessment at selected areas: Turkey, UK, Malta. British council project final report, Ankara by Ergin, A., Williams, A.T., Micallef, AGoogle Scholar
  3. BCR (British Council Report) (2004) A new methodology for evaluating coastal scenery: fuzzy logic systems –a pilot study for Cirali. British Council Project Final Report, Ankara, by Ergin A, Williams AT, Micallef AGoogle Scholar
  4. Briggs DJ, France J (1980) Landscape evaluation: a comparative study. J Environ Manag 10:263–275Google Scholar
  5. Buyoff GJ, Arndt LK (1981) Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct and indirect measurement methods. Landsc Plan 8:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson AA (1977) On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landscape. Planning 4:131–172Google Scholar
  7. CCW (Countryside Council for Wales) (1996) The Welsh Landscape: our heritance and its future protection and enhancementGoogle Scholar
  8. CCW (Countryside Council for Wales) (2001) The LANDMAP Information SystemGoogle Scholar
  9. Clamp PE (1976) Evaluating English landscapes. Environ Plan A8:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Countryside Commission (1987) Landscape assessment-a countryside commission approach. 18, 143ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Countryside Commission (1993) Landscape Assessment Guidance. CCP423, CC. Cheltenham, Gloc. UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Dakin S (2003) There is more to landscape than meets the eye: towards inclusive landscape assessment in resource and environmental management. Can Geogr 47(2):185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniel TC (1990) Measuring the quality of the natural environment: a psychophysical approach. Am Psychol 45(5):633–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elettheriadis N, Tsalikidis I, Manos B (1990) Coastal landscape preference evaluation: a comparison among tourists in Greece. Environ Manag 14(4):475–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ergin A, Karaesmen E, Uçar B (2011) A quantitative study for evaluation of coastal scenery. J Coast Res 27(6):1065–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ergin A (2009) Case study; a holistic approach to beach management at Çıralı, Turkey: a model of conservation, integrated management and sustainable development. In: Williams AT, Micallef A (eds) Beach management: principles and practice. Earthscan, London, pp 355–358Google Scholar
  17. Ergin A, Williams AT, Micallef A (2006) Coastal scenery: appreciation and evaluation. J Coast Res 22:958–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ergin A, Karaesmen E, Gezer E, Uçar B, Karakaya ST (2005) Çıralı coastal scenic assessment using fuzzy logic mathematics. KAY Symposium 2005 (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  19. Ergin, A., Karaesmen, E., Guler, I., Guler, H. G. (2018) “Development of An Open-Source Computational Tool for Coastal Scenic Assessment Based on Fuzzy Logic,” 9th Coastal Engineering Symposium Proceedings, Turkish Chamber of Civil Engineers, Adana, Turkey.Google Scholar
  20. Ergin A, Karaesmen E, Williams AT, Micallef A (2004) A new methodology for evaluating coastal scenery: fuzzy logic systems. Area 36(4):367–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ergin A, Williams AT, Micallef A, Karakaya ST (2002) An innovative approach to coastal scenic evaluation Beach Management in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. MEDCOAST METU, Ankara, pp 215–226Google Scholar
  22. Fines KD (1968) Landscape evaluation. A research project in East Sussex. Reg Stud 2:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gezer E (2004) Coastal scenic evaluation: a pilot study for Çıralı. MSc thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. 110 pGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The visual environment: public participation in design and planning. J Soc Issue 45(1):59–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Karakaya ST (2004) Coastal scenic assessment using fuzzy logic approach. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, MSc Thesis, 164 pGoogle Scholar
  26. Leopold LB (1969) Quantitative comparisons of some aesthetic factors among rivers. US Geol Survey Circ 620. 16 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Linton DL (1968) The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scott Geogr Mag 84:219–238Google Scholar
  28. Linton DL (1982) Visual assessments of natural landscapes. West Geogr Ser 20:97–116Google Scholar
  29. Lowenthal D (1967) Environmental Perception and Behaviour [Edited versions of papers presented in a symposium at the 61st annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Columbus, Ohio, April 20, 1965]. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 102 pGoogle Scholar
  30. Lowenthal D (1978) Finding valued landscapes. Institute of Environmental Sciences/University of Toronto, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  31. Penning-Rowsell EC (1982) A public preference evaluation of landscape quality. Reg Stud 16:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Penning-Rowsell EC (1989) Landscape evaluation in practice – a survey of local authorities. Landsc Res 14(2):35–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robinson DG (1976) Landscape Evolution: the Landscape Evaluation Research Project. 1970–75, Manchester University, UKGoogle Scholar
  34. Uçar B (2004) Coastal scenic evaluation by application of fuzzy logic mathematics. MSc thesis. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. 115 pGoogle Scholar
  35. Van der Meulen F (1997) History and Culture as expressed in the landscape seen from an Ecological Viewpoint. Science, Religion and the Environment Symposium II: The Black Sea in Crisis, pers commGoogle Scholar
  36. Williams AT, Khatabi A (2015) Beach scenery, Nador, Morocco. J Coast Conserv 19(5):743–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Coastal Engineering DivisionMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations