2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determining appropriate neighborhood shapes and sizes for modeling landscape satisfaction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
(65 reference statements)
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Clarifying scale will make landscape research more effective and accurate [1,60]. Grain-size analysis is a differentiating factor in patterns observed in the study of the scale effect on spatial patterns, including land cover diversity metrics [20,25].…”
Section: Impact Of Grain Size On Landscape Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clarifying scale will make landscape research more effective and accurate [1,60]. Grain-size analysis is a differentiating factor in patterns observed in the study of the scale effect on spatial patterns, including land cover diversity metrics [20,25].…”
Section: Impact Of Grain Size On Landscape Metricsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, in analyzing the effects of neighborhood conditions on residents' satisfaction, previous studies have analyzed many variables such as: local jurisdiction effect, crime, physical decay and other activities and land uses (Greenberg, Crossney 2007); noise, green areas, naturalness and openness (Bonaiuto et al 2003;Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, Öhrström 2007;Hur et al 2010;Jong et al 2012); effects of place scale (Bonaiuto et al 2003;Lewicka 2010); perceived neighborhood social cohesion, welfare, friendliness of neighbors, ethnic, racial and economic composition (Lansing, Marans 1969;Cheung, Leung 2011); architectural-planning space, landscaping, housing services, style and condition, children's playgrounds, community halls, organization, car parks, security and disability facilities, neighborhood facilities and environment (Lansing, Marans 1969;Bonaiuto et al 2003;Salleh 2008;Youssoufi, Foltête 2013); communal services such as roads, transport services, sewer system and basic utilities within the housing area (Mohit, Azim 2012); and symbolic factors (e.g. sense of identity and prestige values) (Lansing, Marans 1969) (for further discussion, see also Zehner 1971;Türkoğlu 1997;Ukoha, Beamish 1997;Liu 1999;Westaway 2006;Stronegger et al 2010;Rioux, Werner 2011;Gupta et al 2012;oshio, urakawa 2012).…”
Section: Studies On Neighborhood Satisfactionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Not only did many comparable surveys already exist in other French or European cities (e.g. Bonaiuto, Fornara, & Bonnes, 2003;Ellis, Lee, & Kweon, 2006;Hur, Nasar, & Chun, 2010), but a similar survey had already been undertaken recently in the periurban areas of Besançon as part of a doctoral study (Youssoufi & Foltête, 2013).…”
Section: The Context For the Experimental Trialmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As far as landscape quality variables for the residential environment are concerned, studies carried out in a periurban sector of Besançon have quantified the role played by certain features of the landscape in personal residential satisfaction (Youssoufi & Foltête, 2013). A thousand households were questioned about their degree of satisfaction with the landscape, and the study revealed the importance attributed by individuals to the amount of woodland within 1700 m of their home and to the amount of residential buildings within a distance of a 100 m. The presence of woodland is viewed positively, but the presence of other housings is viewed negatively.…”
Section: Pair Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%