Encyclopedia of Coastal Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Charles W. Finkl, Christopher Makowski

Coastal Scenery

  • A. T. Williams
  • N. G. Rangel-Buitrango
  • E. Pranzini
  • G. Anfuso
  • C. Botero
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48657-4_387-1

Definition

Scenery has been analyzed in a variety of ways, and a lack of consensus exists as to the precise source of its aesthetic quality via the expert and perception-based approaches, culminating in landscape/seascape character assessment approach techniques being assessed. A semi-objective methodology utilizing weighting parameters and fuzzy logic mathematics is given as an example to assess coastal scenery, in which the main parameters (26) that influence people’s assessment of coastal scenery were obtained from over >1000 beach interviews.

Introduction

The importance of landscapes to society for recreation, spiritual nourishment, and posterity has long been recognized. Some landscapes are intrinsically more important than others and designated as such by the plethora of existing classifications, e.g., “national parks,” “heritage coasts,” “areas of outstanding natural beauty,” “wilderness areas,” “protected landscapes,” and “green belts” all reflect scenic beauty. Because of...

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

Bibliography

  1. CCW (2001) The LANDMAP information system, 1st edn. Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor (6 parts)Google Scholar
  2. CSW (1971) Coventry-Solihull-Warwickshire. A strategy for the sub-region, supplementary report 4 – evaluation. GVA Grimley, London, p 186ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Ergin A, Karaesmen E, Micallef A, AT W (2004) A new methodology for evaluating coastal scenery: fuzzy logic systems. Area 36(4):367–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fines KD (1968) Landscape evaluation. A research project in East Sussex. Reg Stud 2:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Frissell SS, Lee RG, Stankey GH, Zube EH (1980) A framework for estimating the consequences of alternative carrying capacity levels in Yosemite Valley. Landsc Plann 7(2):151–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Leopold LB (1969) Quantitative comparisons of some aesthetic factors among rivers. U.S. Geological Survey Circular, 620. Geological Survey, Washington, DC, 16ppGoogle Scholar
  7. LI (2016) Landscape Institute. Landscape character assessment technical information note 8 Feb 2015, 18ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Linton DL (1982) Visual assessments of natural landscapes. W Geog Ser 20:97–116Google Scholar
  9. NE (2012) Natural England. An approach to seascape character assessment, Natural England, commissioned report. NECR. 56ppGoogle Scholar
  10. NE (2014) Natural England. An approach to landscape character assessment, NECR. 57ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Penning-Rowsell EC (1989) Landscape evaluation in practise – a survey of local authorities. Landsc Res 14(2):35–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sauer CO (1963) Morphology of landscape. In: Leighley J (ed) Land and Life. Univ California Press, Berkley, CA, pp 315–350Google Scholar
  13. Srøksnes T (2017) The landscape is not in front of me. It’s all around me’,‘Sharkdrunk’, Jonathon Cape. 320 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Shafer EL, Brush RO (1977) How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landcapes. Landsc Plan 4:237–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tudor C (2014) An approach to landscape character and assessment. Natural England, London. 56ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Williams AT, Micallef A (2001) Beach management. Earthscan, London, p 453ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. T. Williams
    • 1
  • N. G. Rangel-Buitrango
    • 2
  • E. Pranzini
    • 3
  • G. Anfuso
    • 4
  • C. Botero
    • 5
  1. 1.Faculty of Architecture Computing and EngineeringUniversity of WalesSwanseaUK
  2. 2.Departamentos de Física – Biologia, Facultad de Ciencias BasicasUniversidad del AtlanticoBarranquillaColombia
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Scienze della TerraUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  4. 4.Departamento de Ciencias de la TerraUniversidad de CadizCadizSpain
  5. 5.Grupo Sistemas Costeros, PlayasCorpSanta MartaColombia