Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-9
Exploring the relationship between spatial morphology characteristics and scenic beauty preference of landscape open space unit by using point cloud data
To explore the relationship between the objective morphological features and subjective scenic beauty preference of landscape open space units, this study improves the research method for morphology quantification, scenic beauty preference survey and relationship analysis. Fourteen morphology factors representing the features of boundary, domain and enclosure are quantified based on the point cloud data of 35 open space units. Scenic beauty evaluation is conducted online with dynamic panoramic photos. Principal component analysis is implemented to convert 14 correlated form factors into five principal components representing morphological principle. The multiple linear regression model explains the contribution of each principal component to scenic beauty preference values, showing a significance sequence of penetration, scale, naturalness, complexity and rhythm. The first three principal components have positive impacts on scenic beauty preference, while the last two principal components are negative. This work aims to reveal the regularity of public’s scenic beauty preference for open space morphology.
AbkarMKamalMMaulanS, et al. (2011)
Determining the visual preference of urban landscapes. Scientific Research and Essays6(9): 1991–1997.
2.
AppletonJ (1996) The Experience of Landscape.
Chichester:
Wiley.
3.
ArriazaMCañas-OrtegaJFCañas-MadueñoJA, et al. (2004)
Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning69(1): 115–125.
4.
BeirãoJNChaszarAČavićL (2015) Analysis and classification of public spaces using convex and solid–void models. In: RassiaSTPardalosPM (eds) Future City Architecture for Optimal Living.
Cham:
Springer, pp.241–270.
5.
BoothNK.(1989) Basic Elements of Landscape Architectural Design.
Long Grove :Waveland
6.
CaseyES (2011) The edges of landscape. In: MalpasJ (ed.) The Place of Landscape: Concepts, Contexts, Studies.
Cambridge:
MIT Press, pp.91–111.
7.
ChengYN (2009) The Theory and Method of Modern Landscape Design.
Nanjing:
Southeast University Press.
8.
ChenowethRGobsterPH (1990)
The nature and ecology of aesthetic experiences in the landscape. Landscape Journal9(1): 1–8.
9.
ClayGRDanielTC (2000)
Scenic landscape assessment: The effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning49(1–2): 1–13.
10.
CoburnAKardanOKotabeH, et al. (2019)
Psychological responses to natural patterns in architecture. Journal of Environmental Psychology62: 133–145.
11.
DanielTC (2001)
Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning54(1–4): 267–281.
12.
DanielTCBosterRS (1976)
Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment Station167: 66.
13.
DanielTCMeitnerMM (2001)
Representational validity of landscape visualizations: The effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of Environmental Psychology21(1): 61–72.
14.
De la Fuente de ValGAtauriJADe LucioJV (2006)
Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning77(4): 393–407.
15.
DeeC (2004) Form and Fabric in Landscape Architecture: A Visual Introduction.
Oxfordshire:
Taylor and Francis.
16.
DramstadWETveitMSFjellstadWJ, et al. (2006)
Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning78(4): 465–474.
17.
FarinaA (2008) Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology: Towards a Science of the Landscape.
Berlin:
Springer Science and Business Media.
18.
HandsDEBrownRD (2002)
Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape and Urban Planning58(1): 57–70.
19.
HiguchiK (1983) The Visual and Spatial Structure of Landscapes.
Cambridge:
MIT Press.
20.
HullRBStewartWP (1992)
Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology12(2): 101–114.
21.
JakobsenP (1990) Shrubs and groundcover. In: BrianC (ed.) Landscape Design with Plants. 2nd ed.
Oxford:
Newnes, pp.40–75.
22.
JungeXSchüpbachBWalterT, et al. (2015)
Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning133: 67–77.
23.
KaiserHF (1958)
The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika23(3): 187–200.
24.
KaplanRKaplanS (1989) The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.
Cambridge:
CUP Archive.
25.
LambRJPurcellAT (1990)
Perception of naturalness in landscape and its relationship to vegetation structure. Landscape and Urban Planning19(4): 333–352.
26.
LangJ (1984)
Formal aesthetics and visual perception: Questions architects ask. Visual Arts Research10(1): 66–73.
27.
LangJ (1994) Urban Design: The American Experience.
New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
LinBY (1998)
The calculation method of urban spatial form and its evaluation. Urban Planning Review21(3): 42–46.
30.
LothianA (1999)
Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?Landscape and Urban Planning44(4): 177–198.
31.
LothianA (2007)
Landscape quality assessment studies in South Australia. South Australian Geographical Journal106(2007): 27–52.
32.
LynchK (1960) The Image of the City .
Cambridge:
MIT Press.
33.
MeitnerMJ (2004)
Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: Relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning68(1): 3–13.
34.
OdeÅMillerD (2011)
Analysing the relationship between indicators of landscape complexity and preference. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design38(1): 24–40.
35.
OdeÅTveitMSFryG (2008)
Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: Touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research33(1): 89–117.
36.
OthmanNMohamedNAriffinMH (2015)
Landscape aesthetic values and visiting performance in natural outdoor environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences202: 330–339.
37.
PalmerJFHoffmanRE (2001)
Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning54(1–4): 149–161.
38.
PolatATAkayA (2015)
Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening14(3): 573–582.
39.
RobinsonN (2004) The Planting Design Handbook.
London:
Routledge.
40.
ScottMJCanterDV (1997)
Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology17(4): 263–281.
41.
SevenantMAntropM (2009)
Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes.Journal of Environmental Management90(9): 2889–2899.
42.
ShaferELJr(1969)
Perception of natural environments. Environment and Behavior1(1): 71–82.
43.
SimonB (2012) Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process.
London:
Routledge.
44.
StampsAE (1990)
Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills71(3): 907–913.
45.
StampsAE (2005)
Isovists, enclosure, and permeability theory. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32(5): 735–762.
46.
StampsAE (2009)
On shape and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior41(4): 526–548.
47.
StampsAE (2011)
Effects of area, height, elongation, and color on perceived spaciousness. Environment and Behavior43(2): 252–273.
48.
StampsAE (2013)
Effects of Multiple Boundaries on Perceived Spaciousness and Enclosure. Environment and Behavior45(7): 851–875.
49.
TveitMS (2009)
Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups.Journal of Environmental Management90(9): 2882–2888.
50.
TveitMSOdeÅFryG (2006)
Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research31(3): 229–255.
51.
Ul-SaufieAZYahayaASRamliNA, et al. (2013)
Future daily PM10 concentrations prediction by combining regression models and feedforward backpropagation models with principle component analysis (PCA). Atmospheric Environment77: 621–630.
52.
WangYJ, ChengYN, ZlatanovaS, et al
. (2020)
Identification of Physical and Visual Enclosure of Landscape Space Units with the Help of Point Clouds. Spatial Cognition & Computation20(3): 257–279.
53.
WöhrleREWöhrleHJ (2017) Basics Designing with Plants.
Basel:
Birkhäuser.
54.
YanJDiakitéAAZlatanovaS (2018)
An extraction approach of the top-bounded space formed by buildings for pedestrian navigation. ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences4(4): 247–254.
55.
YılmazSÖzgünerHMumcuS (2018)
An aesthetic approach to planting design in urban parks and greenspaces. Landscape Research43(7): 965–983.
56.
ZhaoJLuoPWangR, et al. (2013)
Correlations between aesthetic preferences of river and landscape characters. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management21(2): 123–132.
57.
ZlatanovaSYanJWangY, et al. (2020)
Spaces in spatial science and urban applications – State of the art review. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information9(1): 58.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
