isual Quality Assessment of Walking Tracks in Natural Recreational Area Using Subjective Approach (Case Study: Ziarat basin, Gorgan)

Subject Areas : environmental management

Sepideh Saeidi ¹ , Marjan Mohammadzadeh ² , Abdolrassoul Salmanmahiny ³ , Seyed Hamed Mirkarimi ⁴

1 - - PhD student of environmental assessment, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.* (Corresponding Author).
2 - Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.
3 - Associate Professor Department of Environmental Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.
4 - Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Sciences, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.

Received: 2015-06-08 Accepted : 2016-01-10 Published : 2017-03-21

Keywords: Aesthetic Preferences, Visitors, Ziarat Watershed Walking Track, Questionnaire, SPSS,

Abstract :

Background and Objective: Nowadays, landscape would be regarded as one of the main elements of identity, existence, stability of the environment and a connector between the environment and its users. In this regard, landscape and its relationship with people perception are very momentous. Analysis of the relationships between visual quality and structural characteristics of landscape is an effective method in cognitive researches. In general, studies which are performed based on the aesthetic criteria of landscape not only are searching about the beauty or excellence of landscapes but also are looking for the users' aesthetic preferences. In this study the goal is to prioritize walking tracks of Ziarat basin from the point of cognitive and aesthetic value by using conceptual approach. Method: For this purpose, field survey of walking tracks was conducted to take photographs and mark the viewpoints. Finally a questionnaire survey was developed to investigate the landscape preference which ordinal classification was used in it. Questionnaires were distributed between 217 of visitors. Data which obtained from questionnaires were analyzed by using SPSS software. Findings: The results showed that the walking tracks of the study area are totally different from the point of visual quality and due to visitor preference, Talambar walking tracks has attached the first priority and Sefid cheshmeh has attached the last priority. Discussion and Counclusion: The results of this paper would lead to introduce preferable walking tracks and special view points and landscape of each walking tracks. The results could also help the managers to develop more beautiful trails, and to design and construct sightseeing places along the trails for visitors.

References:

1. انصاری. مجتبی، بمانیان. محمدرضا، مهدوی­نژاد. محمد جواد و حسینی کیا. سید محمد مهدی،1390، مکان­یابی محوطه­های گردش‌گری طبیعی بر اساس اصول معماری منظر، مجله مدیریت شهری، شماره 29، صص 29-7.


2. شکاری. فاطمه و ضیایی. محمود، 1392، اولویت­بندی متغیرهای تأثیرگذار بر ادراک دیدار کنندگان در آبشار مارگون، مجله جغرافیا و آمایش شهری، شماره 6.، صص 48-31.


3. بهمنی. امید و برنجی. مریم، 1390، امکان سنجی و طراحی مسیرهای پیاده­روی دارآباد-جمشیدیه، مجله علوم محیطی، سال هشتم، شماره 4، صص 106-83.
   
   
   1. Daniel, T.C., J., Vining .1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. New York: Plenum, pp. 90-91
   
   
   2. Bell, S. 1993. Elements of Visual Design in the Landscape, London: E & FN Spon press, pp.6-7.
   
   
   3. Porteous, J. 1996. Environmental Aesthetics , ideas ,policy and planning., London: Fontledge, pp.88-89.
   
   
   4. Hull, R.B. and Stewart, W.P. 1995. The Landscape encountered and experiencing while hiking. Environment and Behavior. 27, 404-426.
   
   
   5. Bishop, I.D. and Hulse, D.W. 1994. Prediction of Scenic Beauty using Mapped Data and Geographic Information Systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 30, 59-70.
   
   
   6. Bishop, I.D.; Wherrett, J.R. & Miller, D.R. 2001. Assessment of Path Choices on a Country Walk using a Virtual Environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52, 227-239.
   
   
   7. 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.
   
   
   8. Zube, E.H.; Sell, J.L.; & Taylor, J.G. 1982. Landscape Perception: Research, Application and Theory. Landscape Plan, 9, 1-33.
   
   
   9. Kroh, D.P. and Gimblett, R.H. 1992. Comparing Live Experience with Pictures in Articulating Landscape Preference. Landscape Research. 17, 58-69.
   
   
   10. Arrowsmith, C. 2001. Modelling Tourism Potential for Nature-Based Tourism. Proceeding of The Australian Academy of Science Fenner Conference. Canberra. 25p
   
   
   11. Bergen, S. D. 1990. The validity of computer generated graphic images of forest landscapes. Environmental Psychology, 15, 135– 146.
   
   
   12. Hammitt, W. E., M.E., Patterson, F.P., Noe .1994. Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29 (2 –39), 171– 183.
   
   
   13. Ribe, R.G. 1994. Scenic beauty perceptions along the ROS. Environmental Management, 42(3), 199– 221.
   
   
   14. 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.
   
   
   15. Acar, C. 2006. Public preferences for visual quality and management in Kaçkar Mountains National Park (Turkey). The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13(6), 499–512.
   
   
   16. Wu, Y., Bishop, I.D., Hossain, H. and Sposito, V. 2006. Applying GIS in Landscape Visual Quality Assessment. Applied GIS. 2(3): 1-20.
   
   
   17. Kaltenborn, B.P., T., Bjerke. 2002. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1–11.
   
   
   18. Mok, J., H.C., Landphair, & J.R., Naderi .2005. Landscape improvement impacts on roadside safety in Texas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 263– 274.
   
   
   19. Bulut, Z., H., Yilmaz .2007. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey). Environment monitoring assessment, 141, 121-129.
   
   
   20. Arriaza, M. 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 115 – 125.
   
   
   21. Rogala, M. and Maddern, C. 2007. Walking trails classification system-A report of Research findings. Department of sustainability and environment. 38p.
   
   
   22. 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
   
   
   23. 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.
   
   
   24. 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.
   
   
   25. 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.
   
   


4. سعیدی. سپیده، 1392، ارزیابی و مدلسازی ارزش‌های زیبایی‌شناختی درطول مسیرهای پیاده­روی در حوزه آبخیز زیارت، پایان‌نامه کارشناسی‌ارشد، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی گرگان، 146 ص.
   
   
   1. 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: 177-198.
   
   
   2. Yu, K .1995. Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among Chinese subgroups and western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(2), 107– 126.
   
   


5. گلچین. پیمان، نارویی. بهروز و مثنوی. محمدرضا، 1391، ارزیابی کیفیت بصری فضاهای آموزشی بر اساس ترجیحات استفاده کنندگان (مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان)، مجله محیط­شناسی، شماره 62، صص 152-135.