Aesthetic and Perception: Indicators of perceiving the rural landscape

Muhamad Solehin Fitry Rosley, Hasanuddin Lamit, Syumi Rafida

Abstract


The assessment of authentic beauty of rural landscape requires valid indicators of visual aesthetic and preference of experts and stakeholders with the application of theory driven indicator. The theory driven indicators are tested through a systematic approach by using Research Model Analysis. The design, stratification and administration of questionnaire with special reference to demographic factors were based on the 5 photographs taken in to attain this, the paper aimed at produces valid indicators that considered perception selected rural area for 126 stakeholders using Different Item Functioning analysis. The findings identify Complexity as the valid indicator that agreed by stakeholders.

Keywords: theory driven indicators, stakeholder’s perception, validation, reliability

eISSN 2398-4295 © 2017 The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, UniversitiTeknologi MARA, Malaysia.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Arriaza, M. et al., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), pp.115–125.

Bauer, N., Wallner, A. & Hunziker, M., 2009. The change of European landscapes: human-nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for landscape management in Switzerland. Journal of environmental management, 90(9), pp.2910–20.

Bratli, H. et al., 2006. Patterns of variation in vascular plant species richness and composition in SE Norwegian agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 114(2-4), pp.270–286. A

C. M. Hagerhall, 2000. Clustering Predictors o Landscape Preference in the Traditional Swedish Cultural Landscape : Prospect-Refuge , Mystery , Age and Management. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, (20), Pp.83–90.

Fry, G. et al., 2009. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators, 9(5), pp.933–947.

Groot, W.T. De & Born, R.J.G. Van Den, 2003. Visions of nature and landscape type preferences : an exploration in The Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, pp.127–138.

Kahn, P., 1997. Developmental Psychology and the Biophilia Hypothesis: Children’s Affiliation with Nature, ,. Developmental Review, 17(1), pp.1–61. Lothian, A., 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), pp.177–198.

Negev, M., 2012. Knowledge, data and interests: Challenges in participation of diverse stakeholders in HIA. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33(1), pp.48–54.

Ode, A. et al., 2009. Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of environmental management, 90(1), pp.375–83.

Ode, Å., Tveit, M.S. & Fry, G., 2010. Advantages of using different data sources in assessment of landscape change and its effect on visual scale. Ecological Indicators, 10(1), pp.24–31.

Ode, Å.K. & Fry, G.L.A., 2002. Visual aspects in urban woodland management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 46(1).

Palmer, J.F. & Hoffman, R.E., 2001. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4), pp.149–161.

Paquette, S. & Domon, G., 2003. Changing ruralities, changing landscapes: exploring social recomposition using a multi-scale approach. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(4), pp.425–444.

Paquette, S. & Domon, G., 2001. Trends in rural landscape development and sociodemographic recomposition in southern Quebec (Canada). Landscape and Urban Planning, 55(4), pp.215–238.

Rosley, M.S.F., Lamit, H. & Abdul, S.R., 2013. Perceiving the Aesthetic Value of the Rural Landscape through Valid Indicators. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85, pp.318–331.

Sapawi, R. & Said, I., 2012. Constructing Indices Representing Physical Attributes for Walking in Urban Neighborhood Area. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 50(July), pp.179–191.

Sayadi, S., Gonzalezroa, M. & Calatravarequena, J., 2009. Public preferences for landscape features: The case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy, 26(2), pp.334–344.

Stamps, a, 2004. Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(1), pp.1–16.

Swanwick, C., 2009. Society ’ s attitudes to and preferences for land and landscape. Land Use Policy, 26, pp.62–75.

Tveit, M., Ode, Å. & Fry, G., 2006a. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3).

Tveit, M., Ode, Å. & Fry, G., 2006b. Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), pp.229–255.

Williams, K., 2011. Relative acceptance of traditional and non-traditional rural land uses: Views of residents in two regions, southern Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(1), pp.55–63.

Zube’, E.H., Sell’, J.L. & Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape Perception: Research, Application and Theory. Landscape Planning, 9(9), pp.1–33.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21834/ajbes.v2i6.31

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.