[H-GG01_29PM1] International comparison of landscape appreciation

★ [HGG01-P01_PG] A review of English papers on psychological evaluation of landscape from 2009 to 2013

3-min talk in an oral session

*Yoji AOKI¹ (1.Open University of Japan)

Keywords:landscape appreciation, English papers, 200-2013, review

This paper reviews interesting studies on landscape evaluation in terms of psychological tests referred in Landscape and Urban Planning, Landscape Research, J. of Environmental Psychology, Environment and Behavior, J. of Environmental Management and some other scientific journal from 2009 to 2013. Until 2005, I reviewed various experiments of landscape evaluation in the papers of Review Articles (Aoki 1999, Aoki 2006, and Aoki 2007). During recent 5 years, more works were published compared to the decade of last report. So I tried to summaries them according to the key subjects of the former papers, i.e. (1) clarifications of landscape phenomena, (2) respondents' attributes, (3) landscape appreciation, (4) sampling of landscapes and presentation, and (5) predictive models of psychological response and applications in physical planning.(1) Clarifications of landscape phenomena (Table1)The first proposal of the explanation of the landscape appreciation was proposed by J. Appleton (1975). The detail mechanisms of the appreciations were not explained because of the complicated reaction system of human brain (Thiel 1997). This hard situation was discussed by the advanced brain system endowed to human being (Bourassa 1991). We already got the tool to measure the activities in the brain, but the clarification of the landscape phenomena will take more time because of the complicity of the landscape appreciation (Aoki 2008).In recent 5 years, the childhood and adolescence to feel at home was examined (Adevi and Grahn 2012).(2) Respondents' attributes (Table 2, 3)Two kinds of attributes e.g. identities of human group and personality were reported. For the former, mountain tribe Sherpa (Beza 2010) and Nigeria children (Falk and Balling 2010) were investigated.For the latter, the attribute of tourists was increased and sibling was newly investigated (Howley et al. 2012). The meaning of sampling through internet was yet under consideration.(3) Landscape appreciation (Table 4)Preference has popularly used in recent years. Willingness to pay became popular in this field. SD method was yet used in the appreciation.Other appraisals, e.g. feeling at home (Adevi and Grahn 2012), familiarity (Dobbe 2013) and photo location (Sugimoto 2013) were used.(4) Landscape sampling and presentation (Table 5, 6)In the landscape sampled, new ideas; transportation (Bernasconi et al. 2009), Mt Everest (Beza 2010), fire prone (Islas and Vergara 2012), seasonal change (Eroglu et al. 2012) were tried.As for the presentation method, on-site visits was increasing and use of GPS (Sugimoto 2013) became popular by the development of mobile phone.(5) Predictive model and planning (Table 7, 8)As for the predictive model, biodiversity (Jungels et al. 2013) and flow of stream (Pflueger et al. 2010) were tried. Proposal for planning were offered in terms of mapping (Ribeiro et al 2013, Schirpke et al. 2013). ReferenceAoki, Y. 1999 Review Article: trends in the study of the psychological evaluation of landscape, Landscape Research 24(1), 85-94.Aoki, Y. A. 2006 Historical review on landscape studies in term of psychological evaluation, Landscape planning for Russia: results and prospects 37-46.Aoki, Y. 2007 Recent trends of English papers on the psychological evaluation of landscape, J. of Environmental Information Science 35(5), 181-188.Aoki, Y. 2008 Scientific evaluation of landscape, Seasonal publication Environmental Research 148, 120-126.Appleton, J. 1975 The Experience of Landscape, London. Wiley.Bourassa, S.C. 1991 The Aesthetics of Landscape, London: Belhaven Press. Thiel, P. 1997 People, Paths and Purposes, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.