IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i7p1440-d1197819.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Visual Quality of Rural Road Landscape Character by Using Public Preference and Heatmap Analysis in Sabak Bernam, Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Hangyu Gao

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Shamsul Abu Bakar

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Suhardi Maulan

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Riyadh Mundher

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia)

  • Khalilah Zakariya

    (Kulliyyah of Architecture and Environmental Design, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 53100, Malaysia)

Abstract

The rural road landscape is crucial in forming rural areas’ landscape character (LC). As a platform for portraying the rural landscape, the rural roads demonstrate the area’s unique natural and cultural characteristics to visitors. However, with the continuous development of rural areas, the rural LC has been severely impacted, thus impacting visitors’ visual experience. In order to preserve and protect the rural landscape, this study aims to assess the visual quality of rural road landscapes based on public preference and heatmap analysis. The results indicated that most of the participants had a higher level of preference for rural landscapes with open horizontal views represented by agricultural areas, such as paddy fields. It was also found that different paddy field characters based on their planting stages can also positively affect the visual quality of rural road landscapes. The study also revealed that rural LCs with roadside settlements, commercial structures, mixed agricultural crops, and vegetation received low preference ratings. These characters negatively impact the visual quality of the rural road landscape. These findings provide significant insight for planners and decision-makers regarding protecting and preserving the essential rural road landscapes for the rural tourism experience.

Suggested Citation

  • Hangyu Gao & Shamsul Abu Bakar & Suhardi Maulan & Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof & Riyadh Mundher & Khalilah Zakariya, 2023. "Identifying Visual Quality of Rural Road Landscape Character by Using Public Preference and Heatmap Analysis in Sabak Bernam, Malaysia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:7:p:1440-:d:1197819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/7/1440/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/7/1440/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cao, Yu & Zhang, Xiaoling & He, Lingxiao, 2020. "Collective Action in maintaining rural infrastructures: cadre-farmer relationship, institution rules and their interaction terms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Wilkinson, Leland & Friendly, Michael, 2009. "The History of the Cluster Heat Map," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 63(2), pages 179-184.
    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.
    4. Virginia Harris & Dave Kendal & Amy K. Hahs & Caragh G. Threlfall, 2018. "Green space context and vegetation complexity shape people’s preferences for urban public parks and residential gardens," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 150-162, January.
    5. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    6. Cheng, Long, 2021. "China’s rural transformation under the Link Policy: A case study from Ezhou," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    7. J�rgen Primdahl & Erling Andersen & Simon Swaffield & Lone Kristensen, 2013. "Intersecting Dynamics of Agricultural Structural Change and Urbanisation within European Rural Landscapes: Change Patterns and Policy Implications," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(6), pages 799-817, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Ying Lu & Walter Timo de Vries, 2021. "A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of Rural Development Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-21, May.
    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. Xuhui Yao & Yan Sun, 2024. "Using a Public Preference Questionnaire and Eye Movement Heat Maps to Identify the Visual Quality of Rural Landscapes in Southwestern Guizhou, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, May.
    2. Hangyu Gao & Shamsul Abu Bakar & Suhardi Maulan & Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof & Riyadh Mundher & Benxue Chen, 2024. "How Highway Landscape Visual Qualities Are Being Studied: A Systematic Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Hangyu Gao & Shamsul Abu Bakar & Suhardi Maulan & Mohd Johari Mohd Yusof & Riyadh Mundher & Yu Guo & Benxue Chen, 2024. "A Systematic Literature Review and Analysis of Visual Pollution," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-27, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz & Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek, 2020. "The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Sergio Cappucci & Serena Nappi & Andrea Cappelli, 2022. "Green Public Areas and Urban Open Spaces Management: New GreenCAL Tool Algorithms and Circular Economy Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Ying Lu & Walter Timo de Vries, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Rural Development in China over the Past 40 Years," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    7. Liwen Li & Klaus W. Lange, 2023. "Assessing the Relationship between Urban Blue-Green Infrastructure and Stress Resilience in Real Settings: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-28, June.
    8. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    9. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    10. 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.
    11. Andrzej Greinert & Maria Mrówczyńska, 2020. "The Impact of the Process of Academic Education on Differences in Landscape Perception between the Students of Environmental Engineering and Civil Engineering," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, June.
    12. Najam uz Zehra Gardezi & Brent S. Steel & Angela Lavado, 2020. "The Impact of Efficacy, Values, and Knowledge on Public Preferences Concerning Food–Water–Energy Policy Tradeoffs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura E., 2015. "Households' Adoption of Drought Tolerant Plants: An Adaptation to Climate Change?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205544, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    15. Lisiak-Zielińska, Marta & Jałoszyńska, Sylwia & Borowiak, Klaudia & Budka, Anna & Dach, Jacek, 2023. "Perception of biogas plants: A public awareness and preference - A case study for the agricultural landscape," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Xuesong He & Yawei Wu & Jianzhi Wei, 2024. "The Status of Collective Action among Rural Households in Underdeveloped Regions of China and Its Livelihood Effects under the Background of Rural Revitalization—Evidence from a Field Survey in Shanxi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-19, July.
    19. Elena Prioreschi & Nici Zimmermann & Michael Davies & Irene Pluchinotta, 2024. "Interrelationships and Trade-Offs between Urban Natural Space Use and Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-29, May.
    20. Jinhua Xie & Gangqiao Yang & Ge Wang & Wei Xia, 2021. "How Do Network Embeddedness and Environmental Awareness Affect Farmers’ Participation in Improving Rural Human Settlements?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.

    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:12:y:2023:i:7:p:1440-:d:1197819. 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.