Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of visual landscape quality using IKONOS imagery

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The assessment of visual landscape quality is of importance to the management of urban woodlands. Satellite remote sensing may be used for this purpose as a substitute for traditional survey techniques that are both labour-intensive and time-consuming. This study examines the association between the quality of the perceived visual landscape in urban woodlands and texture measures extracted from IKONOS satellite data, which features 4-m spatial resolution and four spectral bands. The study was conducted in the woodlands of Istanbul (the most important element of urban mosaic) lying along both shores of the Bosporus Strait. The visual quality assessment applied in this study is based on the perceptual approach and was performed via a survey of expressed preferences. For this purpose, representative photographs of real scenery were used to elicit observers’ preferences. A slide show comprising 33 images was presented to a group of 153 volunteers (all undergraduate students), and they were asked to rate the visual quality of each on a 10-point scale (1 for very low visual quality, 10 for very high). Average visual quality scores were calculated for landscape. Texture measures were acquired using the two methods: pixel-based and object-based. Pixel-based texture measures were extracted from the first principle component (PC1) image. Object-based texture measures were extracted by using the original four bands. The association between image texture measures and perceived visual landscape quality was tested via Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The analysis found a strong linear association between image texture measures and visual quality. The highest correlation coefficient was calculated between standard deviation of gray levels (SDGL) (one of the pixel-based texture measures) and visual quality (r = 0.82, P < 0.05). The results showed that perceived visual quality of urban woodland landscapes can be estimated by using texture measures extracted from satellite data in combination with appropriate modelling techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ardila, J. P., Bijker, W., Tolpekin, V. A., & Stein, A. (2012). Context-sensitive extraction of tree crown objects in urban areas using VHR satellite images. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 15, 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asan, U., Özkan, U.Y., Zengin, H., Sağlam, S. (2007). Principals of application of ecosystem based functional planning approach in city groves, bottlenecks, solutions, and priorities in the context of functions of forest resources international symposium, October 17–19, 227-242, İstanbul.

  • Clay, G. R., & Daniel, T. C. (2000). Scenic landscape assessment: the effects of land management jurisdiction on public perception of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, D. (1994). Using remotely sensed data in landscape visual quality assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 30(1–2), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4), 267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, T.C., & Boster, R.S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service Research Paper, RM-167, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

  • Definiens, A. G. (2006). Definiens professional 5 reference book (p. 122). Munich: Definiens AG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dramstad, W. E., Tveit, M. S., Fjellstad, W. J., & Fry, G. L. A. (2006). Relationship between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 465–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Buf, J. M. H., Spann, M., & Kardan, M. (1990). Texture feature performance for image segmentation. Pattern Recognition, 23, 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germino, M. J., Reiners, W. A., Blasko, B. J., Mcleod, D., & Bastian, C. T. (2001). Estimating visual properties of Rocky Mountain landscape using GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53(1–4), 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golivets, M. (2011). Aesthetic values of forest landscapes. Alnarp: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Master Thesis No.177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu, Z., Ju, W., Liu, Y., Li, D., & Fan, W. (2012). Applicability of spectral and spatial information from IKONOS-2 imagery in retrieving leaf area index of forest in the urban area of Nanjing, China. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 6(1), 063556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundersen, V. S., & Frivold, L. H. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: a review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway, Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7(4), 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haider, W. (2002). Visual aesthetic quality of northern Ontario’s forested shorelines. Environmental Management, 29(3), 324–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, K. T. (2007). Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference and restorativeness. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 529–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K., & Dinstein, I. (1973). Textural features for image classification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC, 3, 610–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, H., Förster, M., & Kleinschmit, B. (2009). Contribution of landscape metrics to the assessment of scenic quality—the example of the landscape structure plan Havellend/Germany. Landscape Online, 10, 1–17. doi:10.3097/LO.200910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, T. R. (1984). A cognitive analysis of preference for field and forest environments. Landscape Research, 9(1), 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preference for natural environments: mountains, canyon and deserts. Landscape Journal, 6, 140–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • IBM SPSS Statistics. (2011). Reliability analysis. http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/spssstat/v20r0m0/index.jsp?topic = %2Fcom.ibm.spss.statistics.help%2Fidh_reli.htm. Accessed 8 May 2013.

  • Kalayci, S. (2006). SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques. ISBN, 975-9091-14-3. Ankara: Asil Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayitakire, F., Hamel, C., & Defourny, P. (2006). Retrieving forest structure variables based on image texture analysis and IKONOS-2 imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment, 102(3–4), 390–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellomäki, S., & Savolainen, R. (1984). The scenic value of the forest landscape assessed in field and laboratory. Landscape Planning, 11(2), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., Warner, T. A., Madden, M., & Atkinson, D. S. (2011). Multi-scale GEOBIA with very high spatial resolution digital aerial imagery: scale, texture and image objects. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 32(10), 2825–2850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klobucar, D., Pernar, R., Loncaric, S., & Subasic, M. (2008). Artificial neural networks in the assessment of stand parameters from an IKONOS satellite image. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 29(2), 201–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • la Fuente, D., de Val, G., Atauri, J. A., & de Lucio, J. V. (2006). Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(4), 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindhagen, A., & Hörnsten, L. (2000). Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden: changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry, 73(2), 143–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meitner, M. J. (2004). Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: relating perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ode, A. (2003). Visual aspects in urban woodland management and planning. Alnarp: PhD Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohanian, P. P., & Dubes, R. C. (1992). Performance evaluation for four classes of textural features. Pattern Recognition, 25(8), 819–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ota, T., Mizoue, N., & Yoshida, S. (2011). Influence of using texture information in remote sensed data on the accuracy of forest type classification at different levels of spatial resolution. Journal of Forest Research, 16(6), 432–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemir, I., & Donoghue, D. N. (2013). Modelling tree size diversity from airborne laser scanning using canopy height models with image texture measures. Forest Ecology and Management, 295, 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemir, I., & Karnieli, A. (2011). Predicting forest structural parameters using the image texture derived from WorldView-2 multispectral imagery in a dryland forest, Israel. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 13(5), 701–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemir, I., Norton, D. A., Ozkan, U. Y., Mert, A., & Senturk, O. (2008). Estimation of tree size diversity using object oriented texture analysis and aster imagery. Sensors, 8(8), 4709–4724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemir, I., Mert, A., & Senturk, O. (2012). Predicting landscape structural metrics using Aster Satellite Data. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 20(2), 168–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozkan, U. Y. (2009). The application of multi-source forest inventory on regional base. Istanbul: PhD Thesis, Istanbul University, Institute of Science.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagopoulos, T. (2009). Linking forestry, sustainability and aesthetics. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2485–2489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin, X., Meitner, M.J., Chamberlain, B.C., & Zhang, X. (2010). Estimating visual quality of scenic highway using GIS and landscape visualizations. http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc08/papers/papers/pap_1540.pdf . Accessed 1 Jan 2010.

  • Reed, T. R., & Du Buf, J. M. H. (1993). A survey of recent texture feature extraction and segmentation techniques. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing: Image Understanding, 57(3), 359–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribe, R. G. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environmental Management, 13(1), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogge, E., Nevens, F., & Gulinck, H. (2007). Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(4), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, E.L., & Richards, T.A. (1974). A comparison of viewer reactions to outdoor scenes and photographs of those scenes. USDA Forest Service Research Paper, NE-302, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Forest service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

  • Silvennoinen, H., Pukkala, T., & Tahvanainen, L. (2002). Effect of cuttings on the scenic beauty of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 17(3), 263–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, L. S., Swenson, J. J., Christensen, N. L., & Sexton, J. O. (2012). Three-dimensional characterisation of pine forest type and red-cockaded woodpecker habitat by small-footprint discrete return lidar. Forest Ecology and Management, 281, 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahvanainen, L., Tyrvainen, L., Ihalainen, M., Vuorela, N., & Kolehmainen, O. (2001). Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information. Landscape and Urban Planning, 53(1–4), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tveit, M. S. (2009). Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(9), 2882–2888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tveit, M., Ode, A., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., & Kolehmainen, O. (2003). Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1(3), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyrväinen, L., Pauleit, S., Seeland, K., & Vries, D. (2005). Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In C. C. Konijnendijk, K. Nilsso, T. B. Randrup, & J. Schipperijn (Eds.), Urban forests and trees, part I, chapter 4. ISBN 3-540-25126-X. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulder, M. A., Bater, C. W., Coops, N. C., Hilker, T., & White, J. C. (2008). The role of LiDAR in sustainable forest management. The Forestry Chronicle, 84(6), 807–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildirim, T. (2010). Examination of wood production-consumption relations in terms of forest policy in Turkey. Istanbul: PhD Thesis, Istanbul University, Institute of Science.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forest Faculty, Forest Management Department, Istanbul University, 34473, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ulas Yunus Ozkan

Authors
  1. Ulas Yunus Ozkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulas Yunus Ozkan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ozkan, U.Y. Assessment of visual landscape quality using IKONOS imagery. Environ Monit Assess 186, 4067–4080 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3681-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3681-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation