IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i2p192-d499005.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Exploratory Analysis of Expert and Nonexpert-Based Land-Scape Aesthetics Evaluations: A Case Study from Wales

Author

Listed:
  • Yi-Min Chang Chien

    (School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Steve Carver

    (School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Alexis Comber

    (School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

Abstract

The debate over the conceptual constructs of landscape aesthetics, specifically whether landscape quality is inherently related to landscape physical characteristics or is subjectively “in the eye of the beholder,” has continued for years. Solutions accommodating both the biophysical and perceptual aspects of landscapes are thus desirable for landscape planners and policymakers. In response to policy shifts that emphasise both expert and public landscape perspectives, this study investigates the relationships between formal and informal landscape evaluations. It analyses crowdsourced data describing landscape aesthetic quality (Scenic-Or-Not) and authoritative landscape quality assessments (the Landscape Assessment Decision Making Process (LANDMAP) of Wales). Some agreement was found regarding landforms most likely to be perceived as scenic or unattractive by experts and non-experts, which aligns with previous landscape perception studies. However, contested landscape typologies are identified formal and informal landscape aesthetic evaluations are compared. Several limitations and implications for current formal landscape assessment paradigms (GIS based and vertical) are discussed and several approaches for capturing on-the-ground perceptions are suggested including recent extensions to GIS derived viewsheds (e.g., vertical voxel viewsheds).

Suggested Citation

  • Yi-Min Chang Chien & Steve Carver & Alexis Comber, 2021. "An Exploratory Analysis of Expert and Nonexpert-Based Land-Scape Aesthetics Evaluations: A Case Study from Wales," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:192-:d:499005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/192/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/192/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Butler, 2016. "Dynamics of integrating landscape values in landscape character assessment: the hidden dominance of the objective outsider," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(2), pages 239-252, February.
    2. Santé, Inés & Tubío, José María & Miranda, David, 2020. "Public participation in defining landscape planning scenarios and landscape quality objectives (LQO): Landscape Guidelines for Galicia (NW Spain) case study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Simensen, Trond & Halvorsen, Rune & Erikstad, Lars, 2018. "Methods for landscape characterisation and mapping: A systematic review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 557-569.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Getaneh Addis Tessema & Jean Poesen & Gert Verstraeten & Anton Van Rompaey & Jan van der Borg, 2021. "The Scenic Beauty of Geosites and Its Relation to Their Scientific Value and Geoscience Knowledge of Tourists: A Case Study from Southeastern Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-27, April.
    2. Peng Wang & Wenjuan Yang & Dengju Wang & Youjun He, 2021. "Insights into Public Visual Behaviors through Eye-Tracking Tests: A Study Based on National Park System Pilot Area Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zizhen Hong & Wentao Cao & Ying Chen & Sijia Zhu & Wenjun Zheng, 2024. "Identifying Rural Landscape Heritage Character Types and Areas: A Case Study of the Li River Basin in Guilin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Yingxue Wang & Jiaheng Du & Jingxing Kuang & Chunxu Chen & Maobiao Li & Jin Wang, 2023. "Two-Scaled Identification of Landscape Character Types and Areas: A Case Study of the Yunnan–Vietnam Railway (Yunnan Section), China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Shuang Zhao & Diechuan Yang & Chi Gao, 2023. "Identifying Landscape Character for Large Linear Heritage: A Case Study of the Ming Great Wall in Ji-Town, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, February.
    4. Theano S. Terkenli & Aikaterini Gkoltsiou & Dimitris Kavroudakis, 2021. "The Interplay of Objectivity and Subjectivity in Landscape Character Assessment: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Challenges," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Nadja Penko Seidl & Mateja Šmid Hribar & Jelka Hudoklin & Tomaž Pipan & Mojca Golobič, 2021. "Defining Landscapes, and Their Importance for National Identity—A Case Study from Slovenia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, June.
    6. Rocío Silva-Pérez & Gema González-Romero, 2022. "GIAHS as an Instrument to Articulate the Landscape and Territorialized Agrifood Systems—The Example of La Axarquía (Malaga Province, Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Amalia Vaneska Palacio Buendía & Yolanda Pérez-Albert & David Serrano Giné, 2021. "Mapping Landscape Perception: An Assessment with Public Participation Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis Techniques," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    8. Antonio Santoro & Martina Venturi & Mauro Agnoletti, 2021. "Landscape Perception and Public Participation for the Conservation and Valorization of Cultural Landscapes: The Case of the Cinque Terre and Porto Venere UNESCO Site," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, January.
    9. Andrew Lothian, 2022. "Visual Resource Stewardship—An International Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-38, March.
    10. Vassiliki Vlami & Stamatis Zogaris & Hakan Djuma & Ioannis P. Kokkoris & George Kehayias & Panayotis Dimopoulos, 2019. "A Field Method for Landscape Conservation Surveying: The Landscape Assessment Protocol (LAP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, April.
    11. Joaquin Romano & Emilio Pérez-Chinarro & Byron V. Coral, 2020. "Network of Landscapes in the Sustainable Management of Transboundary Biosphere Reserves," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-24, September.
    12. Joanna T. Storie & Enri Uusna & Zane Eglāja & Teele Laur & Mart Külvik & Monika Suškevičs & Simon Bell, 2019. "Place Attachment and Its Consequence for Landscape-Scale Management and Readiness to Participate: Social Network Complexity in the Post-Soviet Rural Context of Latvia and Estonia," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-24, August.
    13. Seweryn Zielinski & Celene B. Milanés & Elena Cambon & Ofelia Perez Montero & Lourdes Rizo & Andres Suarez & Benjamin Cuker & Giorgio Anfuso, 2021. "An Integrated Method for Landscape Assessment: Application to Santiago de Cuba Bay, Cuba," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-30, April.
    14. Maria Ignatieva & Fahimeh Mofrad, 2023. "Understanding Urban Green Spaces Typology’s Contribution to Comprehensive Green Infrastructure Planning: A Study of Canberra, the National Capital of Australia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-27, April.
    15. Xin Zheng & Zhaoping Yang & Yayan Lu, 2024. "Multidimensional Assessment of the Aesthetic Quality of Natural Landscapes in Mount Wuyi National Park, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, October.
    16. Yulian Pan & Yunong Wu & Xi Xu & Bin Zhang & Weifu Li, 2022. "Identifying Terrestrial Landscape Character Types in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
    17. Barnes, Andrew P. & Thomson, Steven G. & Ferreira, Joana, 2020. "Disadvantage and economic viability: characterising vulnerabilities and resilience in upland farming systems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    18. Jiaying Yan & Shuang Du & Jinbo Zhang & Weiyu Yu, 2023. "Analyzing Transregional Vernacular Cultural Landscape Security Patterns with a Nature–Culture Lens: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta Demonstration Area, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, March.
    19. Wang, Ming & Liu, Zhengjia & Ali Baig, Muhammad Hasan & Wang, Yongsheng & Li, Yurui & Chen, Yuanyan, 2019. "Mapping sugarcane in complex landscapes by integrating multi-temporal Sentinel-2 images and machine learning algorithms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    20. Qi Liu & Nor Arbina Zainal Abidin & Nor Zarifah Maliki & Kailai Zhang & Zhi Li & Sha Liu, 2024. "Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) in Historic Coal Mining Settings for Landscape Conservation: A Systematic Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:192-:d:499005. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.