Marjanne Sevenant

Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes.

The increasing pace and scale of landscape changes involve objective measurements in order to estimate the effects of changes on peoples landscape preferences in a meaningful way. In the literature, some attempts have been made to provide a more conceptual base related to landscape preferences. These concepts and their indicators need to be tested empirically in different contexts and landscape types. In the present study, different items related to theoretical concepts of both aesthetic preference and cognitive rating were examined. They were combined in an in situ questionnaire, which was conducted among undergraduate students in geography during two different field excursions. Stimuli consisted of 11 landscape vistas selected during the excursions. All vistas represent rather rural landscapes but they vary with regard to relief, degree of urbanisation, and degree of agricultural land use. Statistical analysis of all data yielded significant correlations between aesthetic and cognitive ratings. However, these correlations did not appear to be very strong. When considering landscape vistas separately, the relations between all cognitive ratings seemed to vary. Further, not all cognitive aspects had an equal predicting value for aesthetic preference. Moreover, this predicting value appeared to vary between different landscape vistas. The groups of interrelated cognitive aspects could not be associated consistently with theoretical concepts. The results demonstrated the inconsistencies existing between the contents of the theoretical concepts and the indicators found within the landscape. The findings argued for the necessity to distinguish between different ratings and landscape types instead of using unitary preference measures and generalized data when studying landscape preference.

Landscape Representation Validity: A Comparison between On-site Observations and Photographs with Different Angles of View

Abstract Some concern about the representation validity of photographs in visual landscape assessments has been expressed in literature. Mostly, studies consider one type of representation, using the mean ratings for only one preference variable, often scenic quality. Here, validity coefficients are calculated using several landscape preference variables. Three types of stimuli are compared: the in situ landscape, panoramic and standard normal photographs. Landscape vistas were evaluated on site during field excursions. The same scenes were represented as wide angle photographs and standard normal photographs in two other questionnaires. For half of the variables measured no difference in validity could be established between the stimulus types. Standard normal photographs appeared to be more suitable for measuring certain variables. The results demonstrated that both the preference variable being measured and the landscape being evaluated can determine the type of stimulus that is most appropriate to use in questionnaires on landscape assessment.

Chapter 9: Cultural landscape paths in a polarised Belgium

Despite the small size of Belgium, an astonishing diversity of landscapes has developed due to the great variety of natural conditions and many different cultural influences. From the second half of the 19th century the country became highly industrialised and urbanised, which caused the decline of traditional rural landscapes. Today, Belgium is a federal state with three autonomous regions: Flanders, Wallonia, and the Brussels Capital region. Spatial planning, heritage, landscape and environment are within the scope of their political and legal authority. This chapter provides an analysis of the landscape paths of two landscapes in very different geographical situations. The study of local landscape paths unravels causes and mechanisms of change that give a better explanation of the unique identity of places, and hence of the local character. From this point of view, this kind of study can contribute to a broader and deeper valuation. Keywords: archaeological heritage; Belgium; biodiversity; Brussels Capital region; cultural landscape; industrialisation; urbanisation