Identifying the Most Important Criteria Affecting Landscape Visual Quality

Subject Areas : environmental management

Sepideh  Saeidi ¹ (- PhD Student of Environmental Assessment, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.* ( Corresponding Author))
Marjan  Mohammadzadeh ² (Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences Department, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.)
Abdolrassoul  Salmanmahiny ³ (Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences Department, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.)
Seyed Hamed  Mirkarimi ⁴ (Assistant Professor of Environmental Sciences Department, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.)

Received: 2014-05-10 Accepted : 2014-09-08 Published : 2016-12-21

Keywords: Landscape Visual Quality, Objective and Subjective crite, Conceptual Approach, Questionnaire, Ziarat watershed,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: In general, landscape studies, conducted based on aesthetic criteria, do not seek to determine the aesthetic value but seek to extract aesthetic preferences of users. These studies have been performed in two different approaches. The first approach is based on measurable objective criteria and surveying the interaction between these criteria and the second one is based on recognition of the conceptual criteria from the point of observers view. The aim of this study is to identify the most important criteria affecting the landscape visual quality. Method: In this study, objective and subjective criteria of Ziarat basin, where is one of the tourism poles of Golestan province, were prioritized from the point of aesthetic value using the second approach. A questionnaire was developed and distributed among 100 visitors. Data obtained from the questionnaires were analyzed by SPSS software and the criteria were prioritized using ordinal classification. Results: From total of 23 objective and subjective criteria which were surveyed in this study, the first 5 criteria with the highest score were: pristine area, cleanliness of environment, waterfall visibility, visibility of diverse point and color diversity of a landscape.  These 5 criteria could be introduced as the most effective criteria on scenic value of the study area. Conclusion: The subjective criteria introduced in this study could be used as a perfect series of effective criteria which affect the perception of visitors in the other regions too; however, selection of objective criteria for evaluating the visual quality would be different according to geographical location, climatic and topographic characteristics of the area.

References:

1-      اسدپور، علی. 1392. ارزیابی منظر و پیامدهای بصری آن. نشریه کتاب ماه هنر. 8-1: 177.

2-      طبیبیان، منوچهر. 1385. دستورالعمل‌های ارزیابی منظر و آثار بصری. انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، 169 ص.

3-      Porteous, J. D. 1996. Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning. Translated by: Mohammad Reza Masnavi, 1389. Pub: jahade daneshgahi Mashhad.

4-   زبردست، اسفندیار، و بنی عامریان، مهسا. 1389. بررسی ارتباط میان شاخص‌های عینی و ذهنی بعد خدمات عمومی کیفیت زندگی شهری در شهرجدید هشتگرد. مجلة معماری و شهرسازی سال2، شمارة 3، دانشگاه هنر تهران، صص 22-5.

5-      Rogala, M. and Maddern, C. 2007. Walking trails classification system-A report of Research findings. Department of sustainability and environment. 38p.

6-      Jhonson, S.W. and Growcock, A.J. 2005. Visiting the Kosciuszko Alpine Area: Visitor Numbers, Characteristics and Activities. CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd. 124p.

7-      Farias, E.I., Ricardo Grau, T.H. and Camps, A. 2005. Trail preferences and visitor characteristics in Aiguestortes I Estany de Sant Maurici National Park, Spain. Mountain Research & Development. 25(1): 51-59.

8-      Sheppard, S., P., Picard. 2005. Visual-quality impacts of forest pest activity at the landscape level: A synthesis of published knowledge and research needs. Landscape and Urban Planning.77 (4):321–342.

 

9-   گلچین، پیمان و همکاران. 1392. بررسی ترجیحات استفاده کنندگان بر پایة ارزیابی کیفیت بصری (مطالعة موردی: پارک جنگلی شهری ملت زاهدان). محیط شناسی.203-193: (4)39.

 

10-  Aminzadeh, B. and Ghoraishi, S. 2007. Scenic Landscape Quality and Recreational Activities in Natural Forest Parks, Iran. Environmenal research. 1(1): 5-13.

11-  Fourier, R. 2005. Applying GIS in the Evaluation of Landscape Aesthetics. Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Art at the University of Stellenbosch. 70p.

12-  Dye, A.S. and Shaw, S. 2007. A GIS based spatial decision support system for tourists of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Retailing and consumer services. 14: 269-278.

13-  Chhetri, P. and Arrowsmith, C. 2003. Mapping the potential of scenic views for the Grampian National park. Proceeding of 21 International Cartographic Conference (ICC). Durban, South Africa. 12p.

14- سعیدی، سپیده. 1392. ارزیابی کیفیت بصری و مدلسازی ارزش‌های زیبایی‌شناختی در طول مسیرهای پیاده‌روی آبخیز زیارت. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان، 144ص.

15-  مسعودی، ملیحه. 1390. کاربرد ارزیابی چندمعیاره و دیاگرام روابط عملکردی در به گزینی لکه­های فعالیت­های تفرجی (مطالعه موردی: پناهگاه حیات وحش میانکاله). پایان­نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد. دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان. 197 ص.

16-  Corry, R.C. and Nassauer, J.I. 2002. Managing for small-patch patterns in human dominated landscapes. In: LIU, J. and Taylor, W.W: Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. pp: 92-114.

17-  Avizien, D., Pakalnis, R. and Sendzikaite, J. 2007. Presevation, Assessment and Management of Scenic Landscape in Lithuania. Man in the landscape across frontiers-IGU-LUCC Central Europe Conference. 12p

18-  Singleton, J.B. 2009. Landscape and visual impact assessment. Prepared by GHD. Albany. 33p.

19-  Uzun, O. and Muderrisoglu, H. 2011. Visual landscape quality in landscape planning: examples of Kars and Ardahan cities in Turkey. African journal of Agricultural Research. 6(6): 1627-1638.