Abstract
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Appleton J (1975) Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Trans Inst Br Geology 66:120–124
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, A
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 A
Briggs DJ, France J (1980) Landscape evaluation: a comparative study. J Environ Manag 10:263–275
Buyoff GJ, Arndt LK (1981) Interval scaling of landscape preference by direct and indirect measurement methods. Landsc Plan 8:257–267
Carlson AA (1977) On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landscape. Planning 4:131–172
CCW (Countryside Council for Wales) (1996) The Welsh Landscape: our heritance and its future protection and enhancement
CCW (Countryside Council for Wales) (2001) The LANDMAP Information System
Clamp PE (1976) Evaluating English landscapes. Environ Plan A8:79–92
Countryside Commission (1987) Landscape assessment-a countryside commission approach. 18, 143pp
Countryside Commission (1993) Landscape Assessment Guidance. CCP423, CC. Cheltenham, Gloc. UK
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):185–200
Daniel TC (1990) Measuring the quality of the natural environment: a psychophysical approach. Am Psychol 45(5):633–637
Elettheriadis N, Tsalikidis I, Manos B (1990) Coastal landscape preference evaluation: a comparison among tourists in Greece. Environ Manag 14(4):475–487
Ergin A, Karaesmen E, Uçar B (2011) A quantitative study for evaluation of coastal scenery. J Coast Res 27(6):1065–1075
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 355–358
Ergin A, Williams AT, Micallef A (2006) Coastal scenery: appreciation and evaluation. J Coast Res 22:958–964
Ergin A, Karaesmen E, Gezer E, Uçar B, Karakaya ST (2005) Çıralı coastal scenic assessment using fuzzy logic mathematics. KAY Symposium 2005 (in Turkish)
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.
Ergin A, Karaesmen E, Williams AT, Micallef A (2004) A new methodology for evaluating coastal scenery: fuzzy logic systems. Area 36(4):367–386
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 215–226
Fines KD (1968) Landscape evaluation. A research project in East Sussex. Reg Stud 2:41–55
Gezer E (2004) Coastal scenic evaluation: a pilot study for Çıralı. MSc thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. 110 p
Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The visual environment: public participation in design and planning. J Soc Issue 45(1):59–86
Karakaya ST (2004) Coastal scenic assessment using fuzzy logic approach. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, MSc Thesis, 164 p
Leopold LB (1969) Quantitative comparisons of some aesthetic factors among rivers. US Geol Survey Circ 620. 16 pp
Linton DL (1968) The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scott Geogr Mag 84:219–238
Linton DL (1982) Visual assessments of natural landscapes. West Geogr Ser 20:97–116
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 p
Lowenthal D (1978) Finding valued landscapes. Institute of Environmental Sciences/University of Toronto, Toronto
Penning-Rowsell EC (1982) A public preference evaluation of landscape quality. Reg Stud 16:97–112
Penning-Rowsell EC (1989) Landscape evaluation in practice – a survey of local authorities. Landsc Res 14(2):35–37
Robinson DG (1976) Landscape Evolution: the Landscape Evaluation Research Project. 1970–75, Manchester University, UK
Uçar B (2004) Coastal scenic evaluation by application of fuzzy logic mathematics. MSc thesis. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. 115 p
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 comm
Williams AT, Khatabi A (2015) Beach scenery, Nador, Morocco. J Coast Conserv 19(5):743–755
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–335
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
CSES Open-Source Computational Tool
Coastal scenic evaluation system (CSES) is re-implemented in MATLAB environment in Ergin et al. (2018). The developed code ‘CSES 2018 V1’ is presented as an open-source computational tool for the coastal scenic evaluation system with User’s Manual and with an example case study on the following website: http://cses.ce.metu.edu.tr/
Addendum
For different coast sites the results of final assessment matrices (R) obtained depend on membership grading via membership matrices and weights of parameters as well as graded attributes. The entry with maximum entry value of the final assessment matrix R, as membership degree can be accepted as an evaluation state of the coastal site. Yet, considering all sites together for further comparison and for normal (Gaussian) analysis a D-value is defined. D-Values to categorize the scenery of coastal sites are evaluated on statistically described attribute values in terms of weighted areas. So, D value does not change linearly with respect to change of attributes directly when weights of parameters and membership grading remain constant for some situations. Since, D values are evaluated on areas formed by the entries of the final assessment matrices where ticked attributes with 1 and 5 are given weights as –2 and 2, respectively. The ticked attributes 3 and 4 have assumed weights as –1 and 1; and for ticked attribute 3, weight is 0. The idea here is to enhance the results on both ends firstly for preservation and protection of the coastal sites.
D – Values defined in this study depend on weights, and the membership matrices, Mi of the parameters obtained after expert decisions during the BCR and are listed in Appendix 1. Site assessments are time dependent, so D- value is not an intrinsic quantity. They are open to changes in future with further researches and coastal assessment surveys.
Appendices
4.1.1 Appendix 1: Membership-Grade Matrices (Mi) of the 26 Scenic Parameters
4.1.1.1 Scenic Parameters
M | Physical parameters | |
1 | Cliff | Height (H) |
2 | Slope | |
3 | Special features | |
4 | Beach face | Type |
5 | Width (W) | |
6 | Colour | |
7 | Rocky shore | Slope |
8 | Extent | |
9 | Roughness | |
10 | Dunes | |
11 | Valley | |
12 | Skyline landforms | |
13 | Tides | |
14 | Coastal landscape features | |
15 | Vistas | |
16 | Water colour & clarity | |
17 | Vegetation cover | |
18 | Vegetation debris | |
Human parameters | ||
19 | Disturbance factor (noise) | |
20 | Litter | |
21 | Sewage (discharge evidence) | |
22 | Non-built environment | |
23 | Built environment | |
24 | Access type | |
25 | Skyline | |
26 | Utilities |
4.1.2 Appendix 2: Membership-Grade Matrices
\( {M}_1=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.3& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.3& 1.0& 0.3& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.5& 1.0& 0.5\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.5& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.5& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.5& 1.0& 0.5& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.5& 1.0& 0.5\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.5& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_3=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.3& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.3& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.3\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_4=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_5=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.6\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.6& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_6=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.6& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.6& 1.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_7=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.5& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.5& 1.0& 0.5& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.5& 1.0& 0.5\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_8=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.5& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.5& 1.0& 0.4\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.4& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_9=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.1& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.1& 1.0& 0.6& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.6& 1.0& 0.5\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.5& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_{10}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_{11}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.1\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.1& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_{12}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.3& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.6& 1.0& 0.6& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.6& 1.0& 0.2\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_{13}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_{14}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.2\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {\mathrm{M}}_{15}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.3\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.3& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_{16}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.2& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.5& 1.0& 0.5& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.5& 1.0& 0.2\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_{17}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.2& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.2\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_{18}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.2& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_{19}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.2& 1.0& 0.0& 0.2& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.2& 0.0& 1.0& 0.2\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_{20}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.2& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.2\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_{21}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.3& 0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.1\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 0.0& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_{22}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.2& 0.0& 1.0& 0.0& 0.2\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 0.0& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_{23}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.3& 1.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_{24}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.2& 1.0& 0.0& 0.2& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.2& 0.0& 1.0& 0.2\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
\( {M}_{25}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.4& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.4& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.4& 1.0& 0.2& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.4& 1.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) | \( {M}_{26}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.2& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0& 0.0\\ {}0.0& 0.0& 0.0& 0.2& 1.0\end{array}\right] \) |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ergin, A. (2019). Coastal Scenery Assessment by Means of a Fuzzy Logic Approach. In: Rangel-Buitrago, N. (eds) Coastal Scenery. Coastal Research Library, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78878-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78878-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78877-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78878-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)