Advertisement

Perception of Landscape and Land Use

  • Ervin H. Zube

Abstract

Air, water, fire, and earth were declared by Aristotle to be the four essential elements of life. Recent history has clearly demonstrated the significance of his declaration. As public awareness developed that all was not well with our environment, and as supporting evidence accumulated during the past two decades, attention was focused initially on the first two of these classically defined elements, air and water. Relationships between air and water quality and public health and safety were defined and, where possible, quantified and steps were taken to establish standards that were deemed to be consonant with desired and acceptable health and safety conditions. These standards, promulgated primarily through the legislative process, were based both on professional judgments and empirical data. The standards were defined in terms of physical parameters of the elements such as parts-per-million, units of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), or units of discharge per unit of time.

Keywords

North Atlantic Region Landscape Architecture Landscape Classification Landscape Assessment Range Experiment Station 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amidon, E. L., and Elsner, G. H. Delineating Landscape View Areas...A Computer Approach. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Note PSW-180, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Calif., 1968.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T. W., Zube, E. G., and MacConnell, W. Predicting scenic quality. In E. H. Zube (Ed.), Studies in landscape perception, Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1976.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, L. H., Daniel, T. C., and Boster, R. S. Scenic beauty assessment: A literature review. Tucson, Arizona, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper (draft ), Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station (pre-print ), 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, R. G. Landscape-capability classification of the Lake Tahoe basi, California—Nevada, a guide for planning, South Lake Tahoe, Calif., U.S.D.A., Forest Service, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. Boster, R. S., and Daniel, T. C. Measuring public response to negative management. In 16th Annual Watershed Symposium Proceedings, Phoenix, Arizona, 1972, 38–43.Google Scholar
  6. Brush, R. O. The effect of forest vegetation on perceived distance. Unpublished manuscript, 1974.Google Scholar
  7. Brush, R. O. Spaces within the woods: Managing forests for visual enjoyment. Unpublished manuscript, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. Brush, R. O., and Shafer, E. L. Application of a landscape preference model to land management decisions. In E. H. Zube and R. O. Brush and J. Gy. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975.Google Scholar
  9. Cerny, W. Scenic analysis and assessment. CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, June 1974, 221–250.Google Scholar
  10. Chamber, A. D. Assessment of environmental quality in relation to perceived density in recreational settings. Man-Environment Systems, 1974, 4 (6), 353–360.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, A. A new approach to the classification of landscapes. Landscape Research News,England, Winter, 1973–4, 1(6), 3–4.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, R. An application and evaluation of three landscape planning models for the town of Granby, Massachusetts (Terminal project report). Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1974.Google Scholar
  13. Cox, P. T., Haught, A. L., and Zube, E. H. Visual quality constraints in regional land use changes. Growth and Change, a Journal of Regional Development, 1972, 3 (2), 9–15.Google Scholar
  14. Craik, K. H. Human responsiveness to landscape: An environmental psychological perspective. In K. Coates and K. Moffett (Eds.), Responses to environment. Student Publication of the School of Design, Vol. 18, Raleigh, North Carolina State University, 1969, 168–93.Google Scholar
  15. Craik, K. H. Appraising the objectivity of landscape dimensions. In J. Krutilla (Ed.), Natural Environments. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972a, 292–346.Google Scholar
  16. Craik, K. Psychological factors in landscape appraisal. Environment and Behavior, 1972b, 4 (3), 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craik, K. H., and Zube, E. H. (Eds.). Perceiving Environmental Quality. New York: Plenum Publishing Co., 1976.Google Scholar
  18. Daniel, T. C., Wheeler, L., Boster, R. S., and Best, P. R., Jr. Quantitative evaluation of landscapes: An application of signal detection nalaysis to forest management alternatives. Man-Environment Systems: 3 (5), September 1973, 330–344.Google Scholar
  19. Daniel, T. C., and Boster, R. S. Measuring scenic beauty: The SBE method, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Tucson, Arizona (pre-print ), 1974.Google Scholar
  20. Daniel, T. C. Psychological scaling of scenic quality of forest landscapes. Paper presented at Rocky Mountain Psychological Association meetings, Denver, Colorado, May 1974.Google Scholar
  21. Dunn, M. C. Landscape evaluation techniques: An appraisal and review of the literature. Working paper No. 4, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham, England, April, 1974.Google Scholar
  22. Eckbo, G. Open space and land use. In Lovejoy, D. (Ed.), Land use and landscape planning. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1973, 233–247.Google Scholar
  23. Elsner, G. H. Computing visible areas from proposed recreation developments. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Note PSW-246, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Calif. 1971.Google Scholar
  24. Fabos, J. G. An analysis of environmental quality ranking systems. In Recreation Symposium Proceedings, U.S.D.A. Forest Service Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pa., 1971, 40–55.Google Scholar
  25. Fines, K. D. Landscape evaluation: A research project in East Sussex. Regional Studies. Vol. 2. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, 1968, 41–55.Google Scholar
  26. Firey, W. Man, mind and land: A theory of resource use. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  27. Greenwood, N., and Edwards, J. M. B. Human environments and natural ecosystems. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  28. Heller, E. (Ed.). The California tomorrow plan. Los Altos, Calif.: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
  29. Laurie, I. Aesthetic factors in visual evaluation. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975.Google Scholar
  30. Linton, D. The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 1968, 84, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Litton, R., Jr. Forest landscape description and inventories-A basis for land planning and design. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper PSW-49, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Calif., 1968.Google Scholar
  32. Litton, R. B., Jr. Aesthetic dimensions of the landscape. In J. Krutilla (Eds), Natural environments, Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972, 262–291.Google Scholar
  33. Litton, R. B., Jr. Landscape control points: A procedure for predicting and monitoring visual impacts. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper PSW-91, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Calif., 1973.Google Scholar
  34. Litton, R. B., Jr. Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. Journal of Forestry, July 1974a, 72, 392–397.Google Scholar
  35. Litton, R. B., Jr. Esthetic resources of the lodgepole pine forest. Proceedings, Management of Lodgepole Pine Ecosystems Symposium October 9–11, 1973 Pullman, Washington, 1974b.Google Scholar
  36. Lovejoy, D. Land use and landscape planning. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1973.Google Scholar
  37. Lucas, R. C. The recreational capacity of the Quetico-Superior Area. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper LS-8, 1964.Google Scholar
  38. McHarg, I. Design with nature. New York: Natural History Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  39. Mills, L. V., Jr. Lorne scenic quality study. Urbangroup, Lorne, Australia, January, 1975. New England Natural Resources Center, New England Natural Areas Project, Boston, Mass. 1974.Google Scholar
  40. Palmer, J., and Zube, E. H. Numerical and perceptual landscape classification. In E. H. Zube (Ed.), Studies in landscape perception, Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1976.Google Scholar
  41. Rapoport, A. An approach to the construction of man-environment theory. Enviromental design research. Vol. 2. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc. 1973, 124–135.Google Scholar
  42. Riotte, J., Fabos, J. G., and Zube, E. H. Model for evaluation of the visual-cultural resources of the Southeastern New England Region. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc. 1975.Google Scholar
  43. Saarinen, T. F. Perception of Environment. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1969.Google Scholar
  44. Saarinen, T. F. Environmental perception. In I. R. Manners and M. W. Mikesell (Eds.), Perspectives on environment. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1974.Google Scholar
  45. Shafer, E. L., Jr. Forest aestheticsa focal point in multiple use management and research. Proceedings 141VFRO Congress,Munich, 1967, Paper 7, Section 26.Google Scholar
  46. Shafer, E. L., and Thompson, R. C. Models that describe use of Adirondack Campgrounds. Forest Service, December 1968, 14, 383–391.Google Scholar
  47. Shafer, E. L., Hamilton, J. E., and Schmidt, E. A. Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research, 1969, 1, 1–20.Google Scholar
  48. Shafer, E. L., and Mietz, J. It seems possible to quantify scenic beauty in photographs. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper NE-162, Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pa., 1970.Google Scholar
  49. Shafer, E. L., and Tooby, M. Landscape preferences: An international replication. Journal of Leisure Research, 1973, 5, 60–65.Google Scholar
  50. Smithsonian Institution. Planning considerations for statewide inventories of critical environmental areas: A planning guide (Report 3). Washington, D.C., Center for Natural Areas, Office of International Environmental Programs, September, 1974.Google Scholar
  51. Stanford Research Institute. Aesthetics in environmental planning. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA–600/5–73–009, U.S. Government Printing Office, November, 1973.Google Scholar
  52. Stanky, G. A strategy for the definition and management of wilderness quality. In Krutilla, J. (Ed.), Natural environments. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972, 88–114.Google Scholar
  53. Twiss, R. H. Planning for areas os significant environmental and amenity values. In D. M. McAllister (Ed.), Environment: A new focus for land-use planning. Washington, D.C.: RANN, National Science Foundation, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.Google Scholar
  54. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Title 2400-timber management. Forest Service Manual, Portland, Oregon, April, 1968.Google Scholar
  55. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Management practices on the Bitterroot National Forest, Missoula, Montana, 1970.Google Scholar
  56. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. National forest landscape management. Vol. 1. Agriculture Handbook 434, Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, February, 1973.Google Scholar
  57. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. National forest landscape management. Vol. 2. Agriculture Handbook 462, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April, 1974.Google Scholar
  58. U.S. Senate. A university view of the forest service. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Document No. 91–115, 1 December 1970.Google Scholar
  59. Veal, A. J. Perceptual capacity: A discussion and some research proposals. Working Paper No. 1. Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham, England, March, 1973.Google Scholar
  60. Water Resources Council. Water and related land resources, establishment of principles and standards for planning. Federal Register, Washington, D. C., 38, 174, Part III, Monday, 10 September 1973.Google Scholar
  61. Wright, G. McK. Landscape quality: A method of appraisal. Royal Australian Planning Institute Journal, October 1973, 122–130.Google Scholar
  62. Zube, E. G. The islands, selected resources of the United States Virgin Islands and their relation to recreation tourism and open space. University of Massachusetts, Amherst (for the U.S. Department of the Interior), 1968.Google Scholar
  63. Zube, E. H. Evaluating the visual and cultural environment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,July-Aug. 1970, 25:4,137–141.Google Scholar
  64. Zube, E. H. Scenery as a natural resource: Implications of public policy and problems of definition, description and evaluation. Landscape Architecture Quarterly, January 1973a, 126–132.Google Scholar
  65. Zube, E. H. Rating everyday rural landscapes of the Northeastern U.S. Landscape Architecture Quarterly, 1973b, 63 (3), 370–375.Google Scholar
  66. Zube, E. H. Cross-disciplinary and intermode agreement on the description and evaluation of landscape resources. Environment and Behavior, 1974a, 6 (1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zube, E. H. An alternative strategy for land use planning. In 53rd Annual Meeting Proceedings, Appalachian Section, Society of American Foresters, Greensboro, North Carolina, 1974b, 14–25.Google Scholar
  68. Zube, E. G., and Carlozzi, C. Selected resources of the island of nantucket. Publication No. 4, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1966.Google Scholar
  69. Zube, E. H. Study of the visual and cultural environment, North Atlantic regional water resources study. Research Planning and Design Associates, Inc., Amherst, Mass. (for the NAR Study Coordinating Committee ) 1970.Google Scholar
  70. Zube, E. H., and Fabos, J. G. Environmental base study. Southeastern New England Study of Water and Related Land Resources, New England River Basins Commission, Boston, 1972.Google Scholar
  71. Zube, E. H., and Isgur, B. Agency-university-local cooperation in natural resources planning. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, September—October, 1975.Google Scholar
  72. Zube, E. H., and Mills, L. V. Cross-cultural explorations in landscape perception. In E. H. Zube (Ed.), Studies in landscape perception, Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1976.Google Scholar
  73. Zube, E. H., Brush, R. O., and Fabos, J. G. Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975.Google Scholar
  74. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., and Anderson, T. W. Perception and measurement of scenic resources in the southern Connecticut River valley. Institute for Man and Environment, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1974.Google Scholar
  75. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., and Anderson, T. W. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the Northeast. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos (Eds.), Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions and resources. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., 1975, 151–167.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ervin H. Zube
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Man and EnvironmentUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations