[HCG21-P06] Trends of the methods of landscape presentation in the landscape appreciation test from 1967 to 1987
Keywords:presentation of landscape, landscape appreciation, 1967-1987
Trends of landscape presentation method until 1987
Peterson (1967), who used psychometric measurements, evaluated 23 slides by projecting them onto a 50x50 cm screen. The slide evaluation method is an easy way to obtain data for many evaluators at once, and has since become widely used. Canter (1969) experimented with 20 black and white slides on a 2x2m screen. Carr and Schissler (1969) experimented with 10 scenes per second by video. Zube (1973) explored the effects of landscape changes using slides and line drawings. Law and Zube (1983) examined foreground effects in 19 pairs of slides. Hull, Buhyoff and Daniel (1984) conducted an evaluation experiment with a maximum of 134 slides.
Before using the slides, experts visited the site, scored it according to certain criteria, and decided on the quality of the landscape in the area (Fine1968). Although such a method is laborious and costly and there are not many studies have been carried out, but Penning-Rowsell (1977) reported two people evaluated 269 km2. Aoki (1981) conducted the field experiment at 21 sites with 40 subjects and Nasar et al. (1983) examined the effects of observations and widening and narrowing at four locations. Stewart et al. (1984) confirmed the association with 50 slides and field experiments. Nasar (1987) explored the observation directions at 20-point interview.
Carls (1974) began an experiment using photographs that were easier to experiment with than slides. He used 100 color photographs of 8x10 inches. Propst and Buhyoff (1980) performed 100 slide experiments. Schroeder (1982) rated the green on 35 5x7 inch photographs. Shuttleworth (1980) examined the differences between black-and-white and color photographs at six locations. Dearden (1984) conducted an evaluation experiment with 12x18 cm 30 color photographs. Benayas, Lucioto and Belnaldez (1987) gave an environmental assessment with 72 pairs of photographs.
However, it was immediately a matter of whether the photos matched the site evaluation. Dun (1974) examined the differences between the six-point rating and the photo rating. Although his experiments concluded that they were roughly the same, I examined the correlation analysis of the results and found no significant correlation. Dearinger (1979) examined the differences between the 20 slides and the field evaluation. Kane (1981) examined the difference between the site and the slide at 10 points and found a correlation of 0.96. However, Coeterier (1983) examined the five scenery sites and photographic evaluations and found a correlation of 0.39-0.68. Latimer et al. (1981) examined the effects of sky, morning, snow, and clouds. Malm et al. (1981) examined the effects of climatic conditions from 15-150km on 80 slides and on site. Kellomaki and Sabolainen (1984) conducted field and indoor evaluation experiments at 34 locations. Shelby and Harris (1985) examined the relationship between a 5x7inch photograph and the description on the scene. Trent, Neumann and Kvashny (1987) examined differences between on-site and color photography at five locations.
Pogacnick (1976) experimented with a method of creating a montage photograph and evaluating the plan. He also used 20×30 cm black and white 36 photographs, and pointed out the project objects on the photographs (Pogacnick1979).
Myklestad and Wagar (1977) attempted to present landscapes with computer graphics. Killee and Buhyoff (1983) examined the difference between eight CP drawings and sketches with an 8-second presentation.
As for the panorama scenery, Banerjee (1977) tested a 360-degree coastal panoramic view on 16mm film. Clamp and Powell (1982) presented 40 panoramas with six slides. Nassauer (1983) examined the difference between a 140-degree panoramic view and a 65-degree wide-angle view on a 100 x147cm screen with 17 pairs of slides.
Ulrich (1984) examined the effect of the 182 x 122 cm window on postoperative recovery in a hospital.
Peterson (1967), who used psychometric measurements, evaluated 23 slides by projecting them onto a 50x50 cm screen. The slide evaluation method is an easy way to obtain data for many evaluators at once, and has since become widely used. Canter (1969) experimented with 20 black and white slides on a 2x2m screen. Carr and Schissler (1969) experimented with 10 scenes per second by video. Zube (1973) explored the effects of landscape changes using slides and line drawings. Law and Zube (1983) examined foreground effects in 19 pairs of slides. Hull, Buhyoff and Daniel (1984) conducted an evaluation experiment with a maximum of 134 slides.
Before using the slides, experts visited the site, scored it according to certain criteria, and decided on the quality of the landscape in the area (Fine1968). Although such a method is laborious and costly and there are not many studies have been carried out, but Penning-Rowsell (1977) reported two people evaluated 269 km2. Aoki (1981) conducted the field experiment at 21 sites with 40 subjects and Nasar et al. (1983) examined the effects of observations and widening and narrowing at four locations. Stewart et al. (1984) confirmed the association with 50 slides and field experiments. Nasar (1987) explored the observation directions at 20-point interview.
Carls (1974) began an experiment using photographs that were easier to experiment with than slides. He used 100 color photographs of 8x10 inches. Propst and Buhyoff (1980) performed 100 slide experiments. Schroeder (1982) rated the green on 35 5x7 inch photographs. Shuttleworth (1980) examined the differences between black-and-white and color photographs at six locations. Dearden (1984) conducted an evaluation experiment with 12x18 cm 30 color photographs. Benayas, Lucioto and Belnaldez (1987) gave an environmental assessment with 72 pairs of photographs.
However, it was immediately a matter of whether the photos matched the site evaluation. Dun (1974) examined the differences between the six-point rating and the photo rating. Although his experiments concluded that they were roughly the same, I examined the correlation analysis of the results and found no significant correlation. Dearinger (1979) examined the differences between the 20 slides and the field evaluation. Kane (1981) examined the difference between the site and the slide at 10 points and found a correlation of 0.96. However, Coeterier (1983) examined the five scenery sites and photographic evaluations and found a correlation of 0.39-0.68. Latimer et al. (1981) examined the effects of sky, morning, snow, and clouds. Malm et al. (1981) examined the effects of climatic conditions from 15-150km on 80 slides and on site. Kellomaki and Sabolainen (1984) conducted field and indoor evaluation experiments at 34 locations. Shelby and Harris (1985) examined the relationship between a 5x7inch photograph and the description on the scene. Trent, Neumann and Kvashny (1987) examined differences between on-site and color photography at five locations.
Pogacnick (1976) experimented with a method of creating a montage photograph and evaluating the plan. He also used 20×30 cm black and white 36 photographs, and pointed out the project objects on the photographs (Pogacnick1979).
Myklestad and Wagar (1977) attempted to present landscapes with computer graphics. Killee and Buhyoff (1983) examined the difference between eight CP drawings and sketches with an 8-second presentation.
As for the panorama scenery, Banerjee (1977) tested a 360-degree coastal panoramic view on 16mm film. Clamp and Powell (1982) presented 40 panoramas with six slides. Nassauer (1983) examined the difference between a 140-degree panoramic view and a 65-degree wide-angle view on a 100 x147cm screen with 17 pairs of slides.
Ulrich (1984) examined the effect of the 182 x 122 cm window on postoperative recovery in a hospital.