Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Exploring Aesthetic Preferences in Rural Landscapes and the Relationship with Spatial Pattern Indices Cover

Exploring Aesthetic Preferences in Rural Landscapes and the Relationship with Spatial Pattern Indices

Journal of Landscape Ecology
Volume 9 (2016): Issue 1 (January 2016)
By: ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Jul 2016
References

References

  1. Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J., Canas-Madueno, J., Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69 (1), 115-125.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  2. Barroso, F.L., Pinto-Correia, T., Ramos, I.L., Surová, S., Menezes, H. (2012). Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: Photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 329- 342.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. Bergen, S.D., Ulbricht, C.A., Fridley, J.L., Ganter, M.A. (1995). The validity of computer generated graphic images of forest landscapes. Journal of. Environmental Psychology. 15
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Buijs, E., Pedroli, B., Luginbu, Y. (2006). From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: Changing social perceptions of the European landscape. Landscape Ecology, 21, 375-389.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. Bulut, Z., Yilmaz, H. (2008). Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: A case study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 141 (1), 121-129.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  6. Bulut, Z., Yilmaz, H. (2009). Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 154 (1), 459-468.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  7. Brush, R., Chenoweth, R. E., Barman, T. (2000). Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47, 39-45.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. Claval. P. (2005). Reading the rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 9-19.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  9. Council of Europe. (1996). Pan-European biological and landscape diversity strategy. Nature and Environment. Council of Europe Press, Strasbourg.
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Council of Europe. (2000). Landscape European convention. Council of Europe, Florence, Italy.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. DeLucio, J. V., Múgica, M. (1994). Landscape preferences and behaviour of visitors to Spanish national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29(2-3), 145-160.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  12. García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C. A., Aguilera, P. A. Montes, C. (2012). The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 19-20, 136-146.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., Fry, G., (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22, 959-972.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. de Val, G. D. L. F., Atauri, J. A., de Lucio, J. V. (2006). Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and urban planning, 77(4), 393-407.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. Hietala-Koivu, R. (1999) Agricultural landscape change: A case study in Ylane, southeast Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 46, 103-108.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. Howley, P., Donoghue, C. O., Hynes, S. (2012). Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 66-74.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. IDESCAT (2013). Institut d’Estadística de Catalunya. Retrieved January 3, 2013, from www.idescat.cat.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature. A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B., Junge, X. (2010). Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning,98(2), 99-109.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  20. Llausàs, A., Ribas, A., Varga, D., Vila, J. (2009). The evolution of agrarian practices and its effects on the structure of enclosure landscapes in the Alt Empordà (Catalonia, Spain), 1957-2001. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 129, 73-82.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. López-Santiago, C. (1994). Lo universal y lo cultural en la estética del paisaje. Un experimento transcultural de percepción del paisaje. Dissertation. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. McGarigal, K., Marks, B.J. (1994). FRAGSTATS-Spatial Analysis Program for Quantifying Landscape Structure. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, Corvallis, OR.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. McCullagh P, Nelder J. (1989). Generalized Linear Models. Second Edition. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. Misgrav, A. (2000). Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 143-159.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. Nohl, W. (2001). Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception-preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 223-237.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  26. Pinto-Correia, T., Barroso, F., Surová, D., Menezes, H. (2011). The fuzziness of Montado landscapes: Progress in assessing user preferences through photo-based surveys. Agroforest Syst, 82, 209-224.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  27. R Core Team. R. (2014). A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from URL http://www.r-project.org/.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Rogge, E., Nevens, F., Gulinck, H. (2007). Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning. 82, 159-174.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. SIGPAC (2012). Departament d'Agricultura, Ramaderia, Pesca, Alimentació i Medi Natural, Generalitat de Catalunya.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Strumse, E. (1994). Environmental Attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 293-303.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. Strumse, E. (1996). Demographic differences in visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 17-31.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  32. Sullivan, W. C., Anderson, O. M., Lovell, S. T. (2004). Agricultural buffers at the rural- urban fringe: an examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the Midwestern United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2), 299-313.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  33. Surová, D., Surovy, P., Almeida Ribero, N., Pinto-Correia, T. (2011). Integrating differentiated landscape preferences in a decision support model for the multifunctional management of the Montado. Agroforest Syst, 82, 225-237.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  34. Svobodova, K., Vondrus, J., Filova, L., Besta, M. (2011). The role of familiarity with the landscape in visual landscape preferences. Journal of Landscape Studies, 4, 11-24.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Termorshuizen, J. Opdam, P. (2009). Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol, 24, 1037-1052.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  36. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes.Landscape and urban planning, 13, 29-44.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  37. Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S.L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 362-372.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  38. Van den Berg, A.E., Vlek, C.A.J., Coeterier, J.F. (1998). Group differences in the aesthetic valuation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. J. Environ. Psycol. 18, 141-157.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  39. Walker, A.J., Ryan, R.L. (2008). Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 141-152.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  40. Weinstoerffer, J., Girardin, P. (2000). Assessment of the contribution of land use pattern and intensity to landscape quality: use of a landscape indicator. Ecol. Modell., 130, 95-109.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  41. Zube, E.H., Sella, J.L., Taylor, J.G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jlecol-2016-0001 | Journal eISSN: 1805-4196 | Journal ISSN: 1803-2427 (formerly 1805-4196)
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 5 - 21
Submitted on: Sep 9, 2015
Accepted on: Feb 28, 2016
Published on: Jul 6, 2016
Published by: Czech Society for Landscape Ecology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Related subjects:
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other

© 2016 Emma Soy Massoni, Diego Varga, Marc Sáez, Josep Pintó, published by Czech Society for Landscape Ecology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 9 (2016): Issue 1 (January 2016)
Next article