IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i7p2875-d341323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Virtual Reality to Assess Landscape: A Comparative Study Between On-Site Survey and Virtual Reality of Aesthetic Preference and Landscape Cognition

Author

Listed:
  • Jiaying Shi

    (Department of Environmental Science and Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Tsuyoshi Honjo

    (Department of Environmental Science and Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Kaixuan Zhang

    (Department of Tourism Management, Shanghai Business School, Shanghai 200235, China)

  • Katsunori Furuya

    (Department of Environmental Science and Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

Abstract

In recent years, research on landscape perception has been generally overoptimistic about the use of virtual reality (VR); however, few have questioned the validity of VR. It is necessary to examine whether on-site stimulation can be substituted by VR. The purpose of this study was to assess the degree of agreement between on-site survey and VR for landscape perception. The sample included 11 representative landscapes from Tsuchiura city and Tsukuba city, Japan. On-site survey data was collected for 17 items related to aesthetic preference and landscape cognition. The same scenes were produced by VR and same survey data as on-site was collected. The agreement of both the overall mean of all landscapes and the ratings of all individuals in each landscape confirmed the high level of concordance of most cognitive attributes between the two stimuli. The findings support immersive VR as a reliable tool for assessing landscape cognition.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiaying Shi & Tsuyoshi Honjo & Kaixuan Zhang & Katsunori Furuya, 2020. "Using Virtual Reality to Assess Landscape: A Comparative Study Between On-Site Survey and Virtual Reality of Aesthetic Preference and Landscape Cognition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2875-:d:341323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2875/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2875/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lucia Filova & Jiri Vojar & Kamila Svobodova & Petr Sklenicka, 2015. "The effect of landscape type and landscape elements on public visual preferences: ways to use knowledge in the context of landscape planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(11), pages 2037-2055, November.
    2. Marjanne Sevenant & Marc Antrop, 2011. "Landscape Representation Validity: A Comparison between On-site Observations and Photographs with Different Angles of View," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 363-385.
    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. Marco Criado & Antonio Martínez-Graña & Fernando Santos-Francés & Leticia Merchán, 2020. "Landscape Evaluation as a Complementary Tool in Environmental Assessment. Study Case in Urban Areas: Salamanca (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Peeter Vassiljev & Simon Bell & Jekaterina Balicka & Umme Aymona Ali Amrita, 2020. "Urban Blue Acupuncture: An Experiment on Preferences for Design Options Using Virtual Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-37, December.

    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. Gianni Talamini & Ting Liu & Roula El-Khoury & Di Shao, 2023. "Visibility and symbolism of corporate architecture: A multi-method approach for visual impact assessment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(9), pages 2407-2429, November.
    2. E. Yu. Kolbovsky & U. A. Medovikova, 2017. "Assessment of the aesthetic landscape properties for managing areas of outstanding natural beauty and historical significance," Regional Research of Russia, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 81-88, January.
    3. Ling Qiu & Qujing Chen & Tian Gao, 2021. "The Effects of Urban Natural Environments on Preference and Self-Reported Psychological Restoration of the Elderly," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Julian Manning & Catriona Macleod & Vanessa Lucieer, 2023. "Seascape Visual Characterization: Combining Viewing Geometry and Physical Features to Quantify the Perception of Seascape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Ao Du & Weihua Xu & Yi Xiao & Tong Cui & Tianyu Song & Zhiyun Ouyang, 2020. "Evaluation of Prioritized Natural Landscape Conservation Areas for National Park Planning in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-12, February.
    6. Jaewon Han & Sugie Lee, 2023. "Verification of Immersive Virtual Reality as a Streetscape Evaluation Method in Urban Residential Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Nuno de Santos Loureiro, 2023. "Photography, Land-Cover and Land-Use Changes, and Tourism Urbanization: A Narrative Focused on Hotel do Garbe, Armação de Pêra, Algarve, Portugal," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, March.
    8. Teisl, Mario F. & Noblet, Caroline L. & Corey, Richard R. & Giudice, Nicholas A., 2018. "Seeing clearly in a virtual reality: Tourist reactions to an offshore wind project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 601-611.
    9. Olexandr Nekhay & Manuel Arriaza, 2016. "How Attractive Is Upland Olive Groves Landscape? Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and GIS in Southern Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.
    10. Yifan Duan & Shuhua Li, 2022. "Effects of Plant Communities on Human Physiological Recovery and Emotional Reactions: A Comparative Onsite Survey and Photo Elicitation Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Xulin Huang & Chenping Han & Mingkang Ma, 2022. "Visual preferences for outdoor space along commercial pedestrian streets under the influence of plant characteristics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-16, March.
    12. Rust, Niki A. & Rehackova, Lucia & Naab, Francis & Abrams, Amber & Hughes, Courtney & Merkle, Bethann Garramon & Clark, Beth & Tindale, Sophie, 2021. "What does the UK public want farmland to look like?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    13. Yifan Duan & Shuhua Li, 2022. "Study of Different Vegetation Types in Green Space Landscape Preference: Comparison of Environmental Perception in Winter and Summer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Rossetti, Tomás & Hurtubia, Ricardo, 2020. "An assessment of the ecological validity of immersive videos in stated preference surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    15. Pisaniello, John D. & Tingey-Holyoak, Joanne L. & Burritt, Roger L., 2013. "Dual-extreme cumulative impacts and threats in agricultural catchments: The need for effective integrated policy," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 103-112.

    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:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2875-:d:341323. 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.