Visual preferences for various landscapes have been of long-standing interest to researchers. However, the direct relationship of landscape style with preference as well as cross-cultural comparison of preferences between Western and non-Western groups has received little attention. Three aspects of this problem are addressed in this study. First, the characteristics of preferences for three landscape styles, namely, Korean, Japanese, and Western are presented. Second, characteristics of preferences for three landscape elements-water, vegetation, and rock-are analyzed. Finally, a photo-questionnaire was used to make cross-cultural comparisons of preferences between a Korean group and a Western tourist group. It was found that regardless of cultural differences, both Japanese landscape style and the landscape element water were most preferred by both Koreans and Western tourists. For the Koreans, Western landscape style was more preferred than their own Korean landscape style whereas Korean landscape style is more preferred by Western tourists. The results point to both landscape style and landscape elements as the influencing factors on landscape preference, regardless of cultural differences, and there are both differences and similarities in preferences between Korean and Western groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Balling, J. D. , & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5-28.
2.
Berlyne, D. E. , Robbins, M. C., & Thompson, R. (1974). A cross-cultural study of exploratory and verbal responses to visual patterns varying in complexity. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics: Steps toward an objective psychology of aesthetic appreciation (pp. 259-278). New York: Wiley.
3.
Brush, R. O. , & Shafer, E. L., Jr. (1975). Application of a landscape preference model to land management. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources (pp. 168-182). Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
4.
Chung, D.-O. (1982). A comparative study of traditional garden styles between Korean and Japan. Journal of Korean Traditional Garden Research Association, 1, 41-62.
5.
Civco, D. S. (1979). Numerical modeling of eastern Connecticut's visual resources. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource (General Technical Report PSW-35, pp. 263-270). Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
6.
Gallagher, T. J. (1977). Visual preference for alternative natural landscapes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
7.
Graham, D. (1938). Chinese gardens. New York: Dodd, Mead.
8.
Hammitt, W. E. (1978). Visual and user preference for a bog environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
9.
Harada, J. (1956). Japanese gardens. London: The Studio.
10.
Hayakawa, M. (1973). The garden art of Japan. New York: Weatherhill/Heibonsha.
11.
Herzog, T. R. , Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1982). The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment, 5, 43-59.
12.
Hyams, E. (1971). A history of gardens and gardening. New York: Praeger.
13.
Kaplan, R. (1979a). Visual resources and the public: An empirical approach. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource (General Technical Report PSW-35, pp. 209-216). Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
14.
Kaplan, R. (1979b). A methodology for simultaneously obtaining and sharing information. In T. C. Daniel, E. H. Zube, & B. L. Driver (Eds.), Assessment of amenity resource values (General Technical Report, RM-68, pp. 58-66). USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
15.
Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment (pp. 127-161). New York: Plenum.
16.
Kaplan, R. , & Herbert, E. J. (1987). Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281-293.
17.
Kaplan, S. , & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and Environment. New York:Praeger.
18.
Kaplan, S. , Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 354-356.
19.
Kuller, R. (1972). A semantic model for describing perceived environment (National Swedish Building Research Document D12). Stockholm: National Swedish Institute for Building Research.
20.
Kwok, K. (1979). Semantic evaluation of perceived environment: A cross-cultural replication. Man-Environment System, 9, 243-249.
21.
Lowenthal, D. (1968). The American scene. Geographical Review, 58, 61-88.
22.
Nasar, J. L. (1984). Visual preferences in urban street scenes; a cross-cultural comparison between Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 79-93.
23.
Oldham, J. R. (1980). Gardens in time. Sydney: Lansdowne.
24.
Palmer, J. F. (1978). An investigation of the conceptual classification of landscapes and its application to landscape planning issues. In S. Weidemann & J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Priorities for environmental design and research part 1 (pp. 92-103). Washington, DC: Environmental Design Research Association.
25.
Penning-Roswell, E. C. (1979). The social value of English landscapes. Proceedings of Our National Landscape (General Technical Report, PSW-35, pp. 249-255). Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
26.
Peterson, G. , & Neumann, E. (1969). Modeling and predicting human response to the visual recreation environment. Journal of Leisure Research, 1, 219-237.
27.
Schroeder, N. W. , & Daniel, T. C. (1981). Progress in predicting the perceived scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Forest Science, 27, 71-80.
28.
Shafer, E. L. , Hamilton, J. F., & Schmidt, E. A. (1969). Natural landscape preference: A predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research, 1, 1-19.
29.
Shafer, E. L. , & Tooby, M. (1973). Landscape preferences: An international replication. Journal of Leisure Research, 5, 60-65.
30.
Sonnenfeld, J. (1967). Environmental perception and adaptation level in the arctic. In D. Lowenthal (Ed.), Environmental perception and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography.
31.
Tamura, T. (1935). Art of the landscape garden in Japan. Tokyo: Kokusai Bunka Shinkokai.
32.
Thacker, C. (1979). The history of gardens. Berkeley: University of California Press.
33.
Thayer, R. L , & Atwood, B. G. (1978). Plants, complexity and pleasure in urban and suburban environments. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 3, 67-76.
34.
Tips, W.E.J. , & Savasdisara, T. (1986). Landscape preference evaluation and sociocultural background: A comparison among Asian countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 22, 113-124.
35.
Tuan, Y-F. (1973). Visual blight: exercises in interpretation. In Visual blight in America (Commission on College Geography Resource Paper No. 23). Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
36.
Tung, C. (1940). Chinese gardens: Contrast; designs. In H. Inn (Ed.), Chinese houses and gardens. Honolulu: Fong Inn's Ltd.
37.
Ulrich, R. S. (1977). Visual landscape preference: A model and application. Man-Environment Systems, 7, 279-293.
38.
Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 13, 523-556.
39.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the Natural Environment (pp. 85-125). New York: Plenum.
40.
Vining, J. , Daniel, T. C., & Schroeder, H. W. (1984). Predicting scenic values in forested residential landscapes. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 124-135.
41.
Yoon, K.-B. (1983). The characteristics of Korean garden (Korean garden series, 9). Weekly Chosun, 1 (March), 90.
42.
Zube, E. H. (1984). Themes in landscape assessment theory. Landscape Journal, 3, 104-110.
43.
Zube, E. H. , & Mills, L. V., Jr. (1976). Cross-cultural explorations in landscape perception. In E. H. Zube (Ed.), Studies in landscape perception (pp. 167-174). Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Institute for Man and Environment.
44.
Zube, E. H. , & Pitt, D. G. (1981). Cross-cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes. Landscape Planning, 8, 69-87.
45.
Zube, E. H. , Pitt, D. G., & Anderson, T. W. (1975). Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment (pp. 151-167). Stroudsburg: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
