The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference

Sevenant, Marjanne; Antrop, Marc

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.11.002

Cited by 121 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, visual quality can be seen as an important part of the human-environment interaction (Parsons and Daniel, 2000). As well as the mental, physical and socio-economic differences among people, there are also differences in their evaluation of visual preferences for landscape (Sevenant and Antrop, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers ask participants to select or score their favorite photographs to determine the variety of landscape preferences (Bulut and Yilmaz, 2008;Canas et al, 2009;Tveit, 2009;Sevenant and Antrop, 2010;Kurdoglu and Kurdoglu, 2010;Howley, 2011;Ozkan, 2014). There are many visual quality evaluation studies on various habitat types, including those on rural landscapes (Arriaza et al, 2004;Rogge et al, 2007), wetlands, rivers, lake-wetlands (Meitner, 2004;Bulut and Yılmaz, 2009;Zhao et al, 2013), forests (Eroğlu and Acar, 2011), agricultural landscapes (Matthies et al, 2010, Acar andEroğlu, 2010 ), roadside and road corridors (Akbar et al, 2003;Clay and Smidt, 2004;Eroğlu at al., 2016), rocky habitats (Acar et al, 2013;Acar and Sakıcı, 2008), coastal landscape areas (Kalın, 2004;Ak, 2010), and mountainous areas (Eroğlu, 2012;Kalın et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determination of the Visual Preferences of Different Habitat Types

Eroğlu¹,

S²,

Tg³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The unique qualities of areas with natural landscape features help provide sustainability. Moreover, their different vegetation covers and ecosystems contribute to the preservation of their visual attraction. In recent years, the demand for natural areas has not only been seen at a recreational level, but has also become associated with the conservation and sustainability of those areas. Although the concept of sustainability is expressed from an ecological point of view, studies indicate that the visual aspect is also an important component. Thus, in this study, a visual quality assessment was carried out which considered both objective and subjective evaluations of different habitat types. Efteni lakewetland and Melen Ağzı dunes (Düzce), Anzer, Ayder, and Çat Düzü highlands (Rize), and Sultanmurat and Taşli highlands (Trabzon) were selected as the study areas. A visual quality analysis was conducted with a total of 43 participants (23 students, 16 local inhabitants and four lecturers) in order establish their preferences in areas with different landscape characteristics. For the determination of the visual qualifications of these areas, a total of 24 photographs showing typical images representing each habitat type (three photographs for each) were employed. Taking perceptual parameters into consideration, assessment of visual quality was made according to the points given to each photo by the participants. Consequently, differences in visual quality were found to be influenced by the demographic status of the participants, differences in habitat types, recreational trends and the conservation status of the habitats.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of the Visual Preferences of Different Habitat Types

Eroğlu¹,

S²,

Tg³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Standardized approaches for the assessment and monitoring of landscape aesthetics are still missing. According to Sevenant and Antrop [42], research on aesthetic landscape perception needs to focus on a range of landscape types, since the predictors of the aesthetic perception of the public differ in relation to the landscape types in which they are located. That is the reason why we decided to make study, in which we are evaluating all types of landscape occurring in Slovakia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appreciation of landscape aesthetic values in Slovakia assessed by social media photographs

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geolocated photos from google Panoramio are used as a proxy for evaluation of aesthetic values appreciation of different landscape types in Slovakia. We collected the photo's metadata from years 2005 -2014 and calculated the density of photos uploaded by unique user per square kilometre. Then we compared the photos density in different landscape types. The most appreciated are subalpine and alpine landscape types. The high photo density was also found in urban landscapes where most of the population live. Outside the urban area, we found that less intensive type of landscapes are visually more attractive. From the abiotic landscape categories the most aesthetically valuable are landscapes in giant highlands and glacial giant highlands. The lowland landscape used intensively for agricultural production is less attractive.

show abstract

“…landscapes as national heritage (Visual Resource Management Program, 1980;Rogge et al, 2007;Mouflis et al, 2008;Tempesta, 2010;Sevenant and Antrop, 2010;Conrad et al, 2011;Pettit et al, 2011;Svobodova et al, 2012;Best Management Practices…, 2013;Skokanová, 2013;Špulerová et al, 2013;Tempesta et al, 2014;Van der Wal et al, 2014). Here we focus on one component of landscape evaluation -visual landscape attractiveness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%