landscapearchitecture - llufb.llu.lv

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

EVALUATION CRITERIA OF PROTECTED LANDSCAPEAESTHETIC QUALITY

Daiga ZigmundeLatvia University of AgricultureE-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The study focuses on protected landscape aesthetic quality assessment where the main problem is how to associateaesthetical and ecological approaches. High ecological quality does not often correlate with high landscape aestheticquality, and this relationship may di�er depending on speci�c ecosystem. The landscape aesthetic quality assessmenthistorically developed on two approaches. One of them � expert approach which has dominated in landscape planningand management practice, and the second � perception approach which has dominated in research. In protectedlandscape aesthetic quality assessment traditional approaches will be revised by ecology and green philosophy aspects.The study example regards important natural and protected areas around river Lielupe - from Jelgava city to Kalnciems.This is the landscape with high heritage, natural, biological values and it is also living, recreation place for people.Therefore, cooperation between aesthetic and ecological approaches in landscape assessment is needed. The outdoorinvestigations were carried out in autumn 2006. There were photographs and video materials on the �rst stage ofinvestigation. In the second part aesthetic quality of views was analyzed with expert approach. There were three maingroups of evaluation criteria of protected landscape aesthetic quality. These covered design and compositional outlines� features, their quality and relationship among these features. The results showed that not all criteria are suitable ande�ective for evaluation of protected landscape aesthetic quality because of restriction of speci�c ecological conditions.

Keywords: landscape aesthetics, protected area, landscape preference, evaluation criteria, aesthetic quality.

IntroductionThe Signi�cance of Visual Aspects

The visual aspect is just one landscape qualityamong many others. We perceive the landscapeand our surrounding environment through theuse of our senses. Sight interacts with othersenses, such as hearing, smell and touch, but it isconsidered to be the most important, contributingto 80% of our impression of our surroundings.However, since most people base their experienceof their environment primarily on their visualsenses it is an important quality for people(Figure 1.) (Ode, 2003; Zieme�lniece, 1998;

ßðãèíà, 1991).Within the �eld of landscape aesthetics

there are various theoretical approaches thatexplain people's reactions to and preferencesfor landscape. However, taking visual aspectsinto account in the landscape management andplanning is not su�cient in creating well-likedlandscapes. It is also about providing means ofdiscussing and analyzing the existing landscape,as well as methods for evaluating changes causedby natural processes or management and planningactions. Approaches for analyzing and describingthe landscape based on its aesthetic quality havebeen of interest in landscape research, with several

Figure 1. Intensity of perception.

196

Daiga Zigmunde EVALUATION CRITERIA OF PROTECTED LANDSCAPE AESTHETICQUALITY

approaches presented (Ode, 2003).

Aesthetic Quality AssessmentIn order to take visual aspects into account

there is a need to have tools and approaches foranalyzing and describing theem. Over the lasthalf � century landscape quality assessment isregarded from two di�erent approaches. One ofthem is an expert or design approach which is usedmostly in landscape planning and managementpractice (Bells and Nikodemus, 2000; Bri�n�kisand Buka, 2001; Buka and Volrats, 1987;Kundzi�n�s, 2004; Leymarie, 2001). This approachdescribes the visual component in landscapethrough the use of visual concepts that describesthe spatial pattern of the landscape, and oftenuses visibility analysis of di�erent land coverfor evaluation of changes in the visual qualityof the landscape (Ode, 2003). The secondone is the perception � based approach, andit has been developed and used mainly inapplied environmental perception and landscapeassessment research (Bells and Nikodemus, 2000;Ellis and Ficek, 2001; Kaltenborn and Bjerke,2002; Koole and Van den Berg, 2006; Mellumaand Leinerte, 1992; Ode, 2003). Both approachesshare the basic conception of landscape quality inwhich biophysical features of the landscape andhuman perception and experience are essentialinteracting components. Landscape quality arisesfrom the relationship between properties of thelandscape and the e�ects of those properties onhuman viewers. The expert and the perception �based approaches di�er in how relevant featuresof the landscape are represented, and importanceof the contribution of the human viewer indetermining landscape quality levels (Daniel,2001).

The subjective and objective approaches di�ersigni�cantly in their rational for explaining andevaluating landscape visual quality. However,they are similar in that they evaluate the samelandscape, with the same patterns found within,using the same type of the main medium forperception � the vision. Both the subjectiveand objective approaches could contribute to thedevelopment of concepts for describing visualquality (Ode, 2003).

The Expert or Design (objective) ApproachThe objective approach focuses on the physical

appearance of the landscape. The expert or designapproach has its foundation in design theories,linking the description of landscape with termsdeveloped in the aesthetic philosophy and art,and later transferred to a landscape context.

The aim of the approach has been to provide alanguage to describe the landscape with regardsto aesthetic qualities, mainly in relation to design,planning and assessment. By this approach thebiophysical features of the landscape (mountains,lakes, trees, etc.) are translated into formalfeatures (e.g. form, line, texture, color) andrelationships among these features (e.g. variety,unity, harmony). Then, following prescribed rulesand guidelines, areas are ranked from low to highquality. At a deeper level it might be arguedthat the formal design parameters on which theassessment of landscape aesthetic quality is basedare derived from classical or historical analysesor theories of human aesthetic perception andevaluations. Within the expert or design approachseveral concepts exist to explain the visual quality,both with regards to the physical attributes ofelements but also their interrelationship (Ode,2003; Daniel, 2001; Kundzi�n�s, 2004).

The Perception � based (subjective) ApproachThe perception � based approach embraces

subjective philosophical point of view. For thesubjective approach the focus is on the provisionof psychological explanation to preferencesand hence focusing on the responses (Ode,2003). This approach treats biophysicalfeatures of the landscape as stimuli that evokeaesthetically relevant psychological responsesthrough relatively direct sensory � perceptualprocesses, for example, legibility, mystery, safetyetc. Perception-based methods clearly emphasizethe human viewer side of the landscape qualityinteraction. Various survey methods are appliedto obtain measures of perceived landscapeaesthetic quality. Indices of perceived landscapequality are based on choices, ratings of landscapesprovided by samples of actual or potential humanviewers. Di�erent views of landscape usuallyrepresented by photographs (Daniel, 2001).

Aesthetics and EcologyOur society is becoming more and more

urbanized. Urbanization is not only a�ectingthe urbanized areas, urban processes exert anin�uence on the surrounding landscape. Theseurban processes cause di�erent spatial patternin the landscapes as compared to the una�ectedrural area. The process of urbanization has leadto a decrease in available green spaces within thecity and hence put pressure on the existing naturalterritories near the cities. Natural protected areasnear cities is an important component of people'severyday environment, both as an attractiveenvironment to visit as well as being a part of the

197


surrounding landscape. Green areas have beenproven to have positive e�ects on people's healthand reduce stress level.

Visual aspect is a feature that is signi�cantfor most people experience of the landscapeand an important parameter of the naturallyprotected areas which are located near people'sliving, working and recreational areas and can bestrongly in�uenced by urban processes. Throughits location near the urban landscape it is anatural territory that people experience on a dailybasis, making the visual appeal of this territoryimportant. Management and planning for visualaspects in these territories provide one importantapproach for creating enjoyable environments andis also means for attracting people to recreation,education and contact with nature (Ode, 2003;Tyrv�ainen et al., 2003).

The Ecological Aesthetic links aesthetics withethics and sustainability. At its base, it relatesto the moral consideration for aesthetic. Thisapproach is emphasizes the role of preconceptionand knowledge, particularly in relation to theecosystem sustainability, and the need for theunderstanding of what is perceived as beinggood for the creation of an ecologically healthy

landscape. The ecological aesthetic providesa link between ecology and aesthetics whereour aesthetic experience is linked to our ethicalvalues. It has placed focus on ecologicallystable landscapes, stressing the appreciationof naturalness (Ode, 2003; Chenoweth, 1990;Thompson, 1999).

The aim of the studyEvaluation criteria of landscape aesthetic

quality created by using expert or design approachare objective and clearly understandable.Therefore they have been used in study example.The aim of the study has been to explore whichof those evaluation criteria of landscape aestheticquality are appropriate for protected landscapeassessment, and their role in landscape qualitychanges.

Materials and MethodsObject of the Study

The study example surveys important naturaland protected areas around the river Lielupe- from Jelgava city to Kalnciems (Figure 2.).Lielupe is the second biggest river in Latvia. Itis one hundred nineteen kilometers long and hastwo hundred �fty tributaries. There are di�erent

Fig. 2. Location of study area of river Lielupe.

Figure 2. Location of study area of river Lielupe.

198


Figure 3. Characteristic natural landscape features � trees.

protected and also cultural areas near river in areafrom Jelgava to Kalnciems. These are landscapeswith high heritage, natural, biological values andalso living, recreation place for people. Thereis one important restricted area � ornithologicalreserve which is located in Jelgava city and maybe accessible place for people ecological educationand recreation. Other interesting areas for peopleare bangs of river with wild natural landscape(�Zukova, 2001). There are a lot of possibleactivities connected with �shing, swimming andother recreational resources.

MethodsThe outdoor investigations were carried out in

autumn 2006, and two main methods to collectdata were used. First, the photographs with adigital camera were taken in di�erent weatherconditions � sunny, cloudy and rainy days, andbroad daylight. Second, the video material fromthe same places as photographs was taking. It wasa help to sense more of sensations in landscape,such as sounds, feel of whole surrounding, weatherconditions.

The role of the human viewer is acknowledgedat one level by the importance of viewpoints,locations the viewers see the landscape.Therefore, all the photographs were taken fromplaces accessible and visible to general publicfor a better and more complete analysis of thesite and views (Daniel, 2001; Zieme�lniece, 1998).These were views from the main tra�c and smallerroads, recreation routs used by tourists, �shermenand swimmers.

From 300 photos, 20 most typical slides forthe landscape aesthetic quality assessment werechosen. The criteria for preference were qualityaspects of the photographs: contrast, darkness,lightness, colors, absence of the sunlight andsmudgy defects; typicality or representation of

area; and speci�c elements or actions representedon slides (Gracia Perez, 2002; Rodiek and Fried,2004; Kaltenborn and Bjerke, 2002; Koole andVan den Berg, 2006).

Expert QuestionnaireTwo experts � landscape planning

professionals - analyzed selected photographs inauditorium. The expert or design approach wasused in aesthetic quality analyzing process of thelandscapes represented in views. There were threemain groups of evaluation criteria of protectedlandscape aesthetic quality. These covered designand compositional outlines.

First group was the presence of characteristicor non-characteristic landscape features. Thecharacteristic features in protected areas arenatural elements (Figure 3): trees, bushes,meadows, water features and others. Non-characteristic features are man-made elements� buildings, communication constructions andothers (Figure 4.).

The second criteria group was quality oflandscape features. These were translatinginto formal design parameters which assumedto be universal indicators of landscape qualityfrom classical models of human perception andaesthetic judgment (Daniel, 2001; Hehl-Lange,2001). The parameters were analyzed bycomposition outlines: form, color, texture, scale,temporal and spatial movement. These qualitiesare more marketable in the natural protectedareas than urban areas because of dominationof natural features (Figure 5.). These are morechangeable in temporal and spatial scale thanman-made structures in urban areas (Kundzi�n�s,2004).

The third criteria group was relationshipsamong landscape features and unity withsurrounding landscape. These were rhythm,

199


Figure 4. Non characteristic natural landscape feature - communication construction.

proportion (Figure 6.), symmetry, harmony(Figure 7.), arrangement in space (e.g.foreground, background etc.).

Results and DiscussionEvaluation criteria

In �rst group of evaluation criteria - presenceof characteristic or non characteristic landscapefeatures � results showed that landscape aestheticquality was more in�uenced by:

• From characteristic landscape features �Lielupe River together with small waterelements in surrounding landscape (Figure6.). This was speci�ed as positive elementin the protected landscape. Either, mostof characteristic landscape features weredetected as positive in aesthetics.

• From non-characteristic landscape features� communication structures (mainly � high� tension electricity transmission) (Figure4.). These and often di�erent otherman-made elements (e.g. post sovietarchitectural buildings, roads, etc.) werenegative aspects in the landscape.

In the second group - quality of landscapefeatures � results were mostly positive because ofdominance of natural elements in the landscape.Natural elements (Figure 3.), such as trees,bushes, terrain, etc., have great diversity in allof their parameters � color, form, texture andothers. That positively a�ects evaluation level ofprotected landscape aesthetic quality.

The third criteria group was the mostcontroversial, because of non-correlation in manyepisodes between aesthetic and ecology in

Figure 5. Parameters of landscape features � texture and color.

200


Figure 6. Relationships among landscape features � criterion - proportion.

Figure 7. Relationships among landscape features � criterion - harmony.

Figure 8. Controversy between aesthetic (low) and ecology (high biodiversity).

201


aspect of relationship among landscape features.Harmony was positive criterion in assessmenttheory of aesthetic quality, but in many casesfrom ecological point of view more appropriatelevel of harmony was chaos which is the lowestrating of this criterion. Especially it coveredterritories with high biodiversity (decaying treesand branches, overgrow of vegetation, etc.)(Figure 8). Similar experience was observed withcriteria � rhythm and symmetry which in higherevaluation level were rarely �nned in relationshipamong protected landscape features. These weremore appropriate for urban landscapes.

Some Recommendations for Future ProspectsDeveloped further it becomes possible to

compare sites and analyze changes over timewith regards to visual quality, and hence be an

important complement to other types of indicatordata used (ecological and recreational).

ConclusionsIt is important to include ecological criteria

such as increase of biodiversity and naturalnessnext to landscape's aesthetic quality as a criterionfor environmental planning and management.It has become more substantial in protectedlandscape planning and management whereaesthetics should be distinguished from ecologicalvalues.

However, there is an extra need for furtherinvestigation of the linkage between the aestheticand ecological aspects and their attributes in orderto identify the most signi�cant parameters whichcan be used in creating evaluation criteria ofprotected landscape aesthetic quality.

References1. Bells S., Nikodemus O. (2000) Rokasgramata me�za ainavas plano�sanai un dizainam (Forest

Landscape Planning Handbook), R�ga, Valsts Me�za dienests, 76 p. (in Latvian).2. Bri�n�kis J., Buka O. (2001) Teritoriala plano�sana un pilsetbuvniec�ba (Territorial Planning), R�ga,

TU, 219 p. (in Latvian).3. Buka O., Volrats U. (1987) Pilsetbuvniec�ba (Urban Planning), R: Zvaigzne, 251 p. (in Latvian).4. Chenoweth R.E., Gobster P.H. (1990) The Nature and Ecology of Aesthetic Experiences in the

Landscape. Landscape Journal, 1, pp. 1-9.5. Daniel T.C. (2001) Whither Scenic Beauty? Visual Landscape Quality Assessment in 21st Century.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, pp. 267-281.6. Gracia Perez J.D. (2002) Ascertaining Landscape Perceptions and Preferences with Pair-wise

Photographs: Planning Rural Tourism in Extremadura, Spain. Landscape Research, 3, pp. 297-308.7. Ellis L., Ficek C. (2001) Color Preferences According to Gender and Sexual Orientation. Personality

and Individual Di�erences, 31, pp. 1375-1379.8. Hehl-Lange S. (2001) Structural Elements of the Visual Landscape and their Ecological Functions.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, pp. 105-113.9. Kaltenborn B.P., Bjerke T. (2002) Associations Between Environmental Value Orientations and

Landscape Preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, pp. 1-11.10. Koole S.L., Van den Berg A.E. (2006) New Wilderness in the Netherlands: An Investigation of

Visual Preferences for Nature Development Landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, pp.362-372.

11. Kundzi�n�s M. (2004) Dabas formu estetika (Aesthetics of Forms in Nature), R�ga, SIA Madris, 168p. (in Latvian).

12. Leymarie F.F. (2001) Art and Visual Perception by Rudolph Arnheim. USA, pp. 10 ,http://www.lems.brown.edu/vision/people/leymarie/Refs/VisualArt/Arnheim/ArtVisualPercept.pdf,22.03.2007.

13. Melluma A., Leinerte M. (1992) Ainava un cilveks (Landscape and Man), R�ga, Avots, 175 p. (inLatvian).

14. Ode �A. (2003) Visual Aspects in Urban Woodland Management and Planning. Doctor's dissertation,Alnarp

15. Rodiek S.D., Fried J.T. (2004) Access to the Outdoors: Using Photographic Comparison to AssessPreferences of Assisted Living Residents. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73, pp. 184-199.

16. Thompson I.H. (1999) Ecology, Community and Delight, E&FN Spon, London, UK, 188 p.17. Tyrv�ainen L., Silvennoinen H., Kolehmainen O. (2003) Ecological and Aesthetic Values in Urban

Forest Management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1, pp. 135-149.

202


18. Zieme�lniece A. (1998) Estetiska kvalitate ainaviskaja telpa (Aesthetical Quality in Landscape Space),Jelgava, Latvia University of Agriculture, 98 p. (in Latvian).

19. �Zukova Z. (2001) Latvijas zili za�la rota (Blue Green Adornment of Latvia), R�ga, Jumava, 330 p.(in Latvian).

20. ßðãèíà Ç.Í. (1991) Ýñòåòèêà ãîðîäà (Aesthetics of City), Maskava, Ñòðîéèçäàò, 367 c. (inRussian).

203

landscapearchitecture - llufb.llu.lv

Documents