Landscape Planning, 9 (1982) 1-33 1

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION: RESEARCH, APPLICATION AND THEORY

ERVIN H. ZUBE’ , JAMES L. SELL’ and JONATHAN G. TAYLOR’

’ School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
(U.S.A.)
‘Department of Geography, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721 (U.S.A.)
(Accepted 6 January 1982)

ABSTRACT

Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L. and Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape perception: research, application
and theory. Landscape Plann., 9: l-33.

Landscape perception research during the past two decades has responded to legislative
mandates and landscape management, planning and design issues in a number of countries.
It has also engaged the interests of individuals from a variety of disciplines and professions.
This paper presents an analysis of the paradigms that have been followed in assessing per-
ceived landscape values, and identifies the theoretical or conceptual bases which underlie
these approaches. Four paradigms are identified from review of over 160 articles published
in 20 journals during the period 1965-1980. Publications in each paradigm (expert,
psychophysical, cognitive and experiential) are reviewed with reference to contributions
to pragmatic landscape planning and management issues and to the evolution of a general
theory of landscape perception. Trends in publications within the paradigms are indicated
over time and by professional-disciplinary orientation. Overall, the absence of an explicit
theoretical foundation is noted. Arguments in support of the development of a theoretical
framework for landscape perception research are advanced and a proposed framework
based on an interactive perception process is presented.

INTRODUCTION

The major impetus for systematic analyses and studies of landscape beauty
and amenity occurred during the decade of the 1960s and the early 1970s. A
substantial body of legislation was enacted during this time both in the U.S.A.
and Great Britain that directed attention to the identification and manage-
ment of scenic resources. Legislation in the U.S.A. addressed the subjects of
wild and scenic rivers, scenic and recreational trails, scenic highways, environ-
mental impacts of major development projects including aesthetic impacts,
coastal zone management and natural resources planning. In Britain, the
Countryside Act of 1968 stated:

“in the exercise of these functions relating to land under enactment every
Minister, government department and public body shall have regard to the

03043924/82/0000-0000/$02.75 0 1982 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company

2

desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the Country-

side.”

Attention was subsequently directed to aesthetic concerns associated with

agriculture, forestry, recreation and designated Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty, National Parks and Heritage Coasts (Royal Town Planning Institute,
1980).
The directives and mandates provided by these and other legislative acts,
together with an increasing scientific and scholarly interest in landscape per-
ception, provided a stimulus for considerable research and study about land-
scape values and methods for assessing values. During the period of 1970-
1980 a number of state-of-the-art reviews were published (Penning-Rowsell,
1973; Zube, 1973a; Heath, 1975; Helliwell, 1976; Arthur et al., 1977; Hodges,
1978; Lowenthal, 1978; Dearden, 1981) as were several bibliographies
(Cerny, 1972; Marsh, 1972; Arthur and Boster, 1976). The topic also served
as a focus for a number of workshops, conferences and symposia in both the
U.S. and the U.K. (Murray, 1967; Harper and Warback, 1976; Zube et al.,
1975; Appleton, 1979; Elsner and Smardon, 1979).
These legislative initiatives have also stimulated the drafting and publiea-
tion of manuals and guidelines for use in identifying and managing landscape
resources or scenic quality (Count~side Commission for Scotland, 1971;
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1973-1980; U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management,
1980a, b) and for assessing visual impacts of developments (Palmer, 1981).
In addition, some of these guidelines and procedures are now being subjected
to empirical research to appraise their reliability (Feimer et al., 1981). Fre-
quently, agencies have had to respond to legislative mandates without the
benefit of adequate theoretical or methodologic~ research. They may now be
faced with the possibility of having to fine tune or redirect their landscape
assessment procedures in the light of research findings which bring into
question the validity of initial assumptions and the reliability of landscape
ratings obtained from intuitively developed procedures.
Landscape perception and assessment research has engaged the interests of
individuals from an array of disciplines and professions including: forestry,
geography, landscape architecture, psychology, environmental studies and
recreation. Each of these professions and disciplines has brought a different
set of methods, constructs and theoretical orientations to the research endeav-
or, generating a seemingly diffuse collection of studies and findings in the
absence of an integrating theoretical structure.
The intention of this paper is to review the state-of-the-art, but from a dif-
ferent perspective than those of earlier reviews. Our objectives are to analyze
the kinds of approaches or paradigms that have been followed in assessing
perceived landscape values and to identify the conceptual or theoretical bases
which may underlie these paradigms. In addition, we consider the strengths
and weaknesses of the several paradigms from the vantage points of contribu-
tions to the resolution of pragmatic landscape planning and management is-
sues and to the evolution of a general theory of landscape perception.
 3

METHOD

As noted previously, there has been an impressive volume of literature

published in the area of landscape perception including research reports and
papers, monographs, proceedings and journal articles. The emphasis here is on
journal articles because it is our belief that the intellectual content of an area
of inquiry is best defined by those contributions that have been subjected to
scrutiny and review by peers. Such is the procedure with most of the journals
we have included, We have consulted other published materials also, but have
tried to avoid the ephemeral literature such as papers and reports that are not
generally available through established library retrieval systems.
The major content of our review is based on analysis of 20 British, Canadian,
American and international professional and scientific English language
journals (see Table I). These journals represent the disciplines of geography,
forestry and landscape architecture as well as interdisciplinary studies and
research in planning, management, behavorial science and leisure studies.
Many of the journals are recent additions to the domains of scientific and
professional literature and have started publishing within the past three to ten
years. For the longer established journals, we have limited our analysis to
post-1964 issues.
Criteria for the identification of articles to be included in the study are:
(I) one or more of the following closely related (and sometimes redundant)
topics was a non-trivial part of the article: scenic beauty, landscape quality,
landscape character, aesthetics, visual quality and landscape values;
(2) the method for determining landscape beauty, quality, character or
value was clearly identifiable, although the procedures need not be specified,
however.
Each article was independently reviewed by the three authors in terms of the
criteria. Where disagreements existed (less than 4% of the articles), they were
discussed and consensus achieved.

A MODEL OF LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION

To provide a framework for examination of the research, we use a model

in which landscape perception is considered as a function of the interaction
of humans and the landscape (Dewey and Bentley, 1949; Ittelson and Cantril,
1954; Zube et al., 1975). The human component encompasses past experience,
knowledge, expectations and the socio-cultural context of individuals and
groups. The landscape component includes both individual elements and land-
scapes as entities. The interaction results in outcomes which in turn affect both
the human and landscape components (see Fig. 1).
This process model provides a basis for reviewing journal articles in a co-
ordinated fashion and within a structure that facilitates comparison and evalua-
tion. Articles are not evaluated judgementally in terms of agreement with this
particular organizational structure, but rather in terms of the assumptions
4

TABLE I

Numbers of landgcape perception articles (by journai and journal discipline)

Discipline/journal Review No. of Country of

perioda articles journal origin

Landscape
Landscape 1965-1980 11 U.S.A.
Landscape Architecture 1965-1980 21 U.S.A.
Landscape Planning 1974--1980 21 The Netherlands
Landscape Research (News) 1968-1980 16 Britain
Total 69

Geography
Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 1971-1980 1 U.S.A.
Geographical Review 1965-1980 5 U.S.A.
Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 1965--1980 7 Britain
Progress in Human Geography 1977-1980 1 Britain
Total 14

Forestry
Canadian Journal of Forestry 1971-1980 0 Canada
Forestry 1965-1980 7 Britain
Journal of Forestry 1965-1980 11 U.S.A.
Forest Science 1965-1980 5 U.S.A.
Total 23

Outdoor Recreation
Journal of Leisure Research 1969-1980 14 U.S.A.
Leisure Science 1977-1980 4 U.S.A.
Total 18

Interdisciplinary/environmental
Environment and Planning 1969-1980 2 Britain
Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 1971-1980 10 Britain
Coastal Zone Management 1973-1980 4 U.S.A.
Regional Studies 1967- -1980 9 Britain
Total 25

Behavioral
Environment and Behavior 1969-1980 10 U.S.A.
Journal of Applied Psychology 1969--1980 1 U.S.A.
Total 11

Grand total 160

‘Review period: 1965-1980, excepting those journals which began publication after
1965.
 5

Fig. 1. Model of landscape perception.

about and contributions made to the three elements of the model. Thus, each
article was analyzed according to: (1) the explicit or implicit concept of the
human; (2) the salient properties or characteristics of landscape; and (3) the
expected outcome of the interaction between individuals or groups and land-
scape.

Concepts of the Dugan

The human concept refers to the implicit or explicit assumptions about

the nature of humanity, or that feature of humanity that is appealed to in a
particular interaction with the Iandscape. As examples, people may be referred
to on a physiological (infracultural) level as responders to environmental
stimuli; others approach humans on a cognitive level as thinkers imposing
their value structures or ideals of artistic composition on their assessments of
landscapes.
The human concept, as referred to here, is not simply the nature of that
facet of humanity that interacts with,the landscape, but also the nature of
the interaction itself. The concern with the character of human actions on, or
stimulus from, landscape elements is critical to any review of the human model.
From an environmental ~~~ernent point of view, it is important to have an
idea of what people will be doing in their interactions with a particular land-
scape. For example, whether they are building houses, hiking, or simply look-
ing from a scenic viewpoint, the activity will significantly affect the nature of
people’s relationships with the landscape, in terms both of what they put into
and what they take out of their interaction.

Landscape properties

Landscape properties refer to those tangible or intangible elements or refa-

tionships in the landscape that are important to the interaction. For example,
6

landscape inputs may be viewed as composition and form, as physical prop-

erties or features, as scale, complexity, naturalism or gestalt; but always
viewed from the perspective of the perceptual interaction. In landscape assess-
ment, those properties of the landscape that can be seen as influencing the
nature of the interaction and its outcomes are the obvious targets of environ-
mental management. Important to the practical problem of how to modify
environments to optimize desired outcomes is the degree to which pertinent
tangible elements of the landscape can be identified.

Interaction outcomes

Interaction outcome refers to the product which emerges from the human-
landscape perceptual interaction. As with the human and landscape elements,
outcome must be viewed in its interactional context and may be either
tangible (e.g. a state of physical change such as a farm field) or intangible (e.g.
a state of mind such as a feeling of satisfaction or personal achievement). The
outcomes, in turn, feed back to affect both human and landscape inputs to
the interaction. From a management perspective, it is perhaps most useful to
view interaction outcome as the goals to be achieved in human-landscape
interaction.

The development of a unified theoretical perspective requires the examina-

tion of major research directions in reference to the implicit and explicit
theories embodied within them. In this section, a short examination is under-
taken of material published in books, symposia, etc., apart from the journal
literature. This examination focuses on theoretical approaches according to
their concentrations on human, landscape, or interaction components.
Inquiry centered on the landscape itself is most strongly motivated by the
pragmatic concerns of environmental management, planning, or design. The
main concern here is the identification of intrinsic aesthetic qualities or ele-
ments of the landscape that can be stated objectively for use in decision mak-
ing. There are two major approaches to objective catego~zation of landscape
aesthetics, that based on expert judgement and that based on judgements by
groups of non-experts. In the expert approach, it is assumed that trained
professionals are capable of objectively analyzing scenic beauty and translat-
ing landscape qualities into formulas that can be used in design. This point of
view has essentially two antecedents: the fine arts perspective and the ecolog-
ical. The fine arts approach can be seen in such works as Litton (1972) or
Laurie (1975), in which the formal artistic qualities outlined in landscape
architecture (Hubbard and Kimball, 1917; Simonds, 1961) are translated into
assessments of natural beauty. The ecological approach can be seen in Smardon
(1975), where there is a strong implicit assumption that the natural, unmodi-
fied ecosystem carries the highest value.
 The use of non-expert judgements derives from the stimulus-response
background of experimental psychology which views the environment as a
source of stimulus to which the individual responds. In this view, the value of
the landscape is part of its stimulus property, external to the individual and
invariant. This value can be perceived directly without cognitive processing.
Within the field of psychology, this may be seen in Gibson’s (1966,1977)
work on perception, especially the theory of affordances. Within the field of
landscape perception, an example can be seen in the work of Brush and Shafer
(1975) where preferences were analyzed in terms of measured perimeters of
various landscape features on photographs. A similar approach appears to be
behind Daniel and Boster’s (1976) work on scenic beauty estimation, keyed
to manipulable landscape features.
Another research direction focuses on the meaning of the landscape,
primarily viewing scenery as a construct that is built up in the mind, usually
from visual modes of information gathering. This rather intellectual view sup-
ports several theoretical approaches, ranging from psychobiological and
evolutionary conceptualizations to emphasis on the effects of culture and
personality. The major psychobiological approach derives from Berlyne’s
(1960,197l) arousal theory in which aesthetic stimulus elements are im-
portant because of their biological associations. Wohlwill(l976) has used
Berlyne’s work as a basis for discovering stimulus configurations in the land-
scape that can be related to optimal levels of arousal. Another psychobiolog-
ical approach is that of sentics (Clynes, 1969; Greenbie, 1975), which postu-
lates that the neural patterns of emotion have a characteristic shape within
the brain. This shape can be “recognized” in similar shapes on the landscape,
leading to similar emotional responses. An important evolutionary approach
has its basis in information processing theory (R. Kaplan, 1979; S. Kaplan,
1975, 1979), in which landscape preferences are related to the adaptive need
to make sense of the environment and also to be stimulated by it. Similarly,
Appleton (197 5a) proposed that human evolution as hunting creatures has
provided us with a preference for prospects and refuges which allow “seeing
without being seen”. The role of values more specific to groups (Penning-
Rowsell, 1979) or individual personality (Craik, 1975) have also been explored,
but as yet there has been little attempt to put forward a general theory.
Unlike the above approaches, which focus on the objective qualities of the
landscape or the subjective meaning to individuals, the final research orienta-
tion centers on the experience of the human-landscape interaction. This
emphasis on experience suggests that aesthetic quality can lie both in the
landscape and in the meaning of the landscape to people; indeed, they are dif-
ficult to separate from the context of the particular situation and the aesthetic
is difficult to separate from other emotional experience. Such a dynamic,
give-and-take context makes it difficult, in this approach, to employ tech-
niques for analysis other than unstructured phenomenological exploration
(Merleau-Ponty, 1962; Seamon, 1979) or reviews of literature and art (Lowen-
thal, 1979; Sopher, 1979). Much of the experiential study of landscape grew
out of geographers’ studies of landscape (Zube, 1970; Meinig, 1979) and sense
of place (Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1977). Much of what is discussed in terms of
landscape concerns general concepts such as home (Sopher, 1979), historical
landscapes (Lowenthal, 1979) or visual blight (Jackson, 1970; Lewis et al.,
1973). The major thrust in this group has not been the identification of
specific high quality elements in the landscape, but the understanding of the
experience of interacting with the landscape and its importance to people.

EMERCE~ LANDSCAPEPERCE~ICN PARADIGMS

The literature review and analysis of major research directions, based on the
human-landscape-interaction-outcome model, have identified four general
paradigms of landscape perception research:

(I) The expert paradigm. This involves evaluation of landscape quality by

skilled and trained observers. Skills evolve from training in art and design,
ecology or in resource man~ement fields where wise resource movement
techniques may be assumed to have intrinsic aesthetic effects.

(2) The psychophysical paradigm. This involves assessment through testing

general public or selected populations’ evaluations of landscape aesthetic
qualities or of specific landscape properties. The external landscape proper-
ties are assumed to bear a correlational or stimulus-response relationship to
observer evaluations and behavior.

(3) The cognitive paradigm. This involves a search for human meaning asso-
ciated with landscapes or landscape properties. Information is received by the
human observer and, in conjunction with past experience, future expectation,
and sociocultural conditioning, lends meaning to landscape.

(4) The experiential, paradigm. This considers landscape values to be based on

the experience of the hums-l~dscape interaction, whereby both are shap
ing and being shaped in the interactive process.
The relationship between these conceptual paradigms and the evaluative
model are presented in Table II.

RESULTSAND DISCUSSION

The review of 20 journals identified over 160 articles which were categorized
according to the four paradigms, expert, psychophysics, cognitive and ex-
periential Each article was also classified according to the landscape context,
use or issue being addressed. In several instances, articles were found which
spanned more than one paradigm or more than one context; in these cases as-
signment was made on the primary emphasis of the article. Table III indicates
the distribution of articles within this two-dimensional paradigm context
matrix.
TABLE II

Relatjon~ips of model elements and landscape perception paradigms

_--.---.__- __I---_
Expert
--___lll-_-___.. ._-..-__..Psychophysical
-. .-- --.. ___-. -_-- - Cognitive Experiential __._
Human Elite, highly-skilled Observer as respondent Observer as processor Active participant
model trained observer

Landscape From principles of art, Specific landscape prop- Associated with obtain- World of everyday experience:
properties design, ecology, and erties manipuIatab~e ing information and Familiarity
resource management: through management meaning: Social space
Form EcoIogieal and design: Mystery Prospect Landscape style
Balance principles - Cover Legibility Refuge
Contrast diversity Water Identifiability Hazard
Character Silviculture - Topography
Diversity timber stand Structures
improvement

Pollution
controi

Inter- Statement of landscape Numerical or statistical Meaning Habitual behavior

action quality expression of perceived Ratings of satisfaetion- Understanding of human and
outcomes Enhanced sense of values dissatisfaction and landscape development
landscape Related landscapes or preference Change
landscape features Stress reduction Statements of landscape
Adaptation taste
Enhancement of sense-of-self

W
 10

TABLE III

Journal articles classified by paradigm and context

Contexts (Landscape) Expert Psychophysical

Forests, including: Burke. 1975; Clay, 1965; Goodall and
management Whittow. 1980: Goodier and BaII. 1974:
planning Litton, 1’974; MacDonald. 1969;
roads, etc. Matthews, 1967; Murison, 1965;
MyWestad and Wagar, 1977: Nicker-
son. 1979; Rasmussen. Weisz, Ffol-
liott and Carder, 1980; Twiss, 1969:
Van Deusen and Egler, 1965: Wigg.
1969; Workman, 1974.
Arthur, 1977: BNS~. 1979: Buhyoff and
Leuschner. 1978: Buhyoff. Leuschner
and Arndt. 1980; Buhyoff and Reisen-
man. 1979; Buhyoff and WeIIman.
1980; Cook, 1972: Daniel. Anderson,
Schroeder and Wheeler, 1977; Ruther-
ford and Shafer, 1969: Schroeder and
Daniel. 1980: Shafer, 1969; Williamson
and Calder. 1979; Yarrow, 1966.

Recreation. including: Duffield and Coppock. 1975; FrisseII. CarIs. 1974; Ewing and KuIka, 1979;
forest recreation Lee. Stankey and Zube. 1980; Hart and Fitzsimmons. 1977: Foster and Jackson,
National Parks Graham, 1967; Lindsay, 1969; Oving- 1979: Hancock. 1973; Heberlein and
river recreation ton. Groves, Stevens and Tanton. Dunwiddie. 1979; Knapp. BaIIman and
1974; Rudolf, 1967; Wagar, 1975. Merriam, 1979; Levine and Langenau.
1979: Peterson, 1974b; Sidaway, 1977.

Rural, including: BlackseU and Gil& 1975; 00s. Diebold
planning and LugInbohl. 1980; Dearden. 1980;
management Feste and Otterholm. 1974: Fines,
methods 1968: Green. 1975; Jones, 1978;
Leonard and Cobham, 1977: Nassauer.
1980: Paulson, 1978; Penning-RowseII
and Hardy, 1973; Perelman. 1980;
Ramos. Ramos, Cifuentes and Fer-
nandez-Canada.% 1976; Taggart,
Tethrow and Bottomly, 1980; Zannati,
1980.
Buhyoff. 1979; Chapman. 1974;
Coeterier and Diikstra. 1976; Crystal
and Bntfh, 1978; Dearden and Rosen-
blood, 1980; HeIIiwelI. 1978: Probst
and Buhyoff. 1980; Shafer and Brush.
1977; Shafer, Hamilton and Schmidt,
1969; Shuttleworth. 1980: Thayer,
Hodgson, Guske. Atwood and Holmes,
1976: Wright. 1974: Zube. Anderson
and Pitt, 1974.

Coasts and rivers Cads, 1979; Gilchrist, 1971: Jones, Banerjee. 1977: Byrne, 1979; Hali,
Gray and Sweeney. 1974: Kifer. 1975: 1974: Stein% 1979.
Reimold. Hardisky and Phillips. 1980;
Turner. 1972; Wallace. 1974.

Natural/man-made. Carruth, 1977; McHarg, 1967; Skjold. Brancher, 1972: Clamp, 1975; Clamp,
including: 1967: Stoeckeler. 1968; Thayer, 1976; 1976; Evans and Wood, 1980; Jacobs
comparisons Tobey. 1965; WiIIiamson. Fabos and and Way, 1969; Jones, Ady and Gray,
structures, MacConneU, 1978 1976: Price, 1976; Rodenas. Sancho-
roads. etc. Royo and Gonzales-Bemaldez. 1975:
Schomaker, 1978: Wohlwill. 1978.

Sociocultural

Historical

Individual
experience

Critiques Brancher, 1969; BrIggs and France. Arthur, Daniel and Baster, 1977;
1980: Carlson. 1977: Crofts, 1975; Fabos. 1974; Helliweh. 1976: Kreimer.
GiIg, 1975: Hamill. 1975: Kates. 1977; Weinstein, 1976.
1967: Penning-RowseII and Searle.
1977; Streeby, 1970; ThraiI. 1978;
Turner, 1975: Zube. 1973a.
 11

Cognitive Experiential

Buhyoff, Leuschner and Wellman, 1979;

Saurin. 1980; Simpson, Rosenthal.
Daniel and White. 1976; Yeieer and
Shilhng. 1978.

Peterson, 19748; Price. 1979; Shafer. Levy, 1979.

and Mietz. 1969

Beckett. 1974; WeBman and Buhyoff.

1980: Zube. 1974; Zube, 1973b.

Nieman. 1980.

Ackfng and Sorte, 1973; C&in, Dear-

inger and Curtin. 1972; Hodgson and
Thayer, 1980; Ulrich. 1979: Wiiel.
Malek and The& 1969; WoblwiB and
Harris, 1980; WohlwiB and Heft, 1977.

Buhyoff. Wellman, Harvey and Fraser, Duncan, 1973; Kobayashi. 1980; Lowenthal.
1978; Riley, 1980: Sonnenfeld, 1969. 1968: Lowenthal and Prince. 1965.

Lowenthal. 1935; Lowenthal, 1977; Wilkin-

son, 1979: Zaring. 1977.

Riley, 1979. Aiken, 1976; Lowenthaf, 1978: Matro, 1978;

Relph, 1979: Unwin, 1975.

Frondorf. McCarthy and Zube, 1980; Newby, 1979,

Jacques, 1980.
12

Trends

The 16-year period covered by the present survey shows a marked increase
in the number of articles published annually. The nine-year period, 1965-
1973, shows an average incidence of 4 articles per year while the seven-year
period, 1974-1980, shows over 16 per year (see Fig. 2). Simultaneously, the
number of journals published that carry landscape perception articles has also
increased, from 8 in 1965 to 20 by 1980. Thus, an increasing interest in the
fiefd of landscape perception is evidenced by expanding trends in both number
of articles published and in number of appropriate journals.

EXPERT
I

EXPERIENTIAL

, t , i I I I ‘ I II ( I I I, 0
66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Fig. 2. Overall paradigm trends.

Trends within and among paradigms are also evident. As Fig. 2 indicates, the
expert paradigm enjoyed an early dominance and, with the psychophysical
paradigm, remains dominant over the 16-year period. These two paradigms ac-
count for 73% of the literature reviewed. However, all four paradigms show
increasing utilization over time. Ratios of articles-per-year for the 1974-
 13

1980 period compared with the 1965-19’73 period are 3 to 1 for expert, 4
to 1 for cognitive, 5 to 1 for experiential, 8 to 1 for psychophysics and 4 to
1 overall. These ratios suggest that the psychophysical paradigm is emerging
as the dominant research direction. For the earlier period (1965-1973), the
ratio of expert to psychophysical to cognitive to experiential articles is ap-
proximately 6/2/2/l; for the later period (1974-1980) it is approximately
3/4/2/l. However, since the bulk of both the expert and psychophysical
paradigm articles are geared toward problem-solv~g for the landscape man-
ager, this changing ratio does not represent a change in the relative emphasis
on theory and application.
Of the six broad disciplinary categories, i.e., landscape, geography, forestry,
recreation, interdisciplinary/environmental and behavorial, the landscape
journals have carried the greatest number of perception articles, with 45% of
the total. Nearly half of these fall within the expert paradigm. That the expert
paradigm dominates landscape journal coverage is not surprising and is a reflec-
tion of the training and the nature of practice among many professionals.
Since 1974, the more behaviorally-oriented psychophysical paradigm has
made significant inroads into this literature with 31% of the articles. Nine
cognitive and six experiential articles have appeared in the landscape journals
during the 16-year review period, all since 1973.
Somewhat similar to the landscape journals in the expert and psychophys-
ical paradigm patterns are the forestry journals. Geared to the professional
forester who has recently been legally required to consider landscape aesthetic
quality, these journals are predictably applications oriented. Forestry journals
emphasized the expert paradigm in their coverage of landscape perception
until 1977 when psychophysical articles first appeared in “Forest Science”.
With the notable exceptions of Litton, Shafer, Daniel, Buhyoff and their col-
leagues, there is a strong suggestion in the American forestry journals that
proper silvicultural management automatically yields quality landscape
aesthetics. Undoubtedly, this opinion is true among many professional foresters,
but whether the same can be said of the general public remains, at best, un-
proven.
Recreation journals represent a specialized orientation within resource
management. In recreation, people are more intrinsically involved with the
resource to be managed. Thus, the psychophysical relationships between the
human being and the recreation landscape are of primary importance to the
recreation manager and are reflected in the literature, where 72% of the articles
fall into the psychophysical paradigm, 1’7%into the cognitive, and only one
articIe each in the expert and experiential paradigms.
Behavorial journal articles concerning landscape perception were found
predominantly in “Environment and Behavior”, with one article in the
“Journal of Applied Psychology”. The balanced emphasis here on psycho-
physical and cognitive approaches most closely resembles that of the recrea-
tion journals, which also serve as a publication outlet for behavorial scientists
concerned with landscape perception.
14

The interdisciplinary/environmental journals focus on planning and manage-

ment. As in forestry and landscape journals, primary emphasis has been within
the expert approach, with psychophysical ranking second. There has been an
increasing emphasis on the cognitive approach since 1978. However, no ex-
periential articles were found in these journals.
Unlike the disciplinary areas discussed so far, the geography journals have,
since 1965, placed primary emphasis within the experiential paradigm. This is
primarily at~ibu~ble to the writing of one individual, David Lowenthal.
Three expert articles, but neither psychophysical nor cognitive articles, were
found in these journals from 1965 to 1980.
The discussion of landscape perception paradigms and disciplines demon-
strates a degree of separation between journals having theoretical and applica-
tions orientations. Whereas the geographic journals exhibit heavy emphasis on
the experiential approach to landscape perception, and the behavioral and
recreation journals stress cognitive and psychophysical approaches; the man-
agement and applications joumals,‘particularly within forestry and landscape,
place heavy emphasis first on expert and subsequently on psychophysical ap-
proaches. This may reflect editorial policies, but it might also suggest that
landscape managers, planners and designers have little interest in the theoretical
literature, especially in the experiential and cognitive paradigms, and particular-
ly if it is lacking in suggestions of practical use.
Regardless of the underlying reasons, independent development of landscape
assessment and perception theories has not contributed to the development of
an integrated approach to landscape perception. Nevertheless, 16 reviews and
critiques that begin to evaluate and make comparisons among studies have
been published during the review period, 14 of them in the last eight years (see
Table III). These papers include criticisms and empirical tests of landscape
perception assessment techniques, discussions regarding the matching of tech-
niques to specific problems, methodological reviews and discussions of theory.

Contributions to planning, management and theory

The expert and psychophysical paradigms, as noted previously, emphasize

problem-related research. Papers falling within these paradigms also address
the development of methods for such research. Studies are directed to specific
planning, design and management issues with emphasis on immediate applica-
tions. The cognitive and experiential paradigms address applied and theoretical
issues. Studies tend, however, to be less explicit in the translation of research
findings to direct applications on specific planning or management issues. In
the examination of contributions to theory, primary emphasis is placed on
providing insight into the understanding of the process that occurs when
landscape is perceived. Although theoretical implications can be found in te-
search in all four paradigms, the pursuit of understanding is most strongly
undertaken in tlne cognitive and experiential paradigms. The following discus-
sion on planning and management, therefore is primarily based on studies
categorized under the expert and psychophysical paradigm.
 15

Landscape context categories (see Table III) that account for most publica-
tions are forests and rural, with each accounting for approximately one-
fourth of the papers. Forest management papers address species composition
and selection for aesthetic values (MacDonald, 1969; Cook, 1972; Goodier
and Ball, 1974; Workman, 1974), timber harvest (Litton, 1974; Burke, 1975;
Mykiestad and Wagar, 1977; Nickerson, 1979), multiple use (Matthews, 1967;
Twiss, 1969; Streeby, 1976), assessing forest scenic resources (Yarrow, 1966;
Daniel et al., 1978; Williamson and Caider, 1979) and the visual effects of in-
sect damage (Buhyoff and Leuschner, 1978; Buhyoff et al., 1979). In addition,
papers on the siting of forest roads (Goodall and Whittow, 1980; Rasmussen
et al., 1980; Schroeder and Daniel, 1980), the development and planning of
facilities in forests (Clay, 1965) and the management of forests for recreation
(Van Deusen and Egler, 1965; Rudolf, 1967; Wigg, 1969; Sidaway, 1977;
Buhyoff and Wellman, 1980) suggest a substantial emphasis on forest land-
scapes. The user of computer-based technologies in management and planning
is also emphasized (Myklestad and Wagar, 1977; Nickerson, 1979; Rasmussen
et al., 1980). Several papers, particularly those with a methodological emphasis,
suggest the possibility of encompassing data derived from psychophysical
studies (e.g. Rasmussen et al., 1980).
The majority of the rural papers also fail within the expert paradigm. Re-
search tends to emphasize methodological issues and planning field studies.
Methodological research has included assessment and quantification of land-
scape preference (Shafer et al., 1969; Zube et al., 1973-1974; Helliwell,
1976; Probst and Buhyoff, 1980), use and validity of photographic simulation
(Shafer and Brush, 1977; Shuttleworth, 1980), observation (Buhyoff, 1979)
physical landscape dimensions based on both expert opinion and psycho-
physical approaches (Chapman, 1974; Crofts, 1975; Feste and Otterholm,
1974; Ramos et al., 1976; Crystal and Brush, 1978), statistical techniques
(Dearden, 1980; Dearden and Rosenblood, 1980) and general methodological
frameworks for planning (Zarmati, 1980).
Field studies applying various techniques and methods have been accom-
plished in natural landscapes (Shafer, 1969; Shafer et al., 1969; Calvin et al.,
1972; Taggart et al., 1980), areas of outstanding natural beauty (Perming-
Rowseli and Hardy, 1973) and ruralagricultural landscapes (Fines, 1968;
Blacksell and Giig, 1975; Jones, 1978; Cross et al., 1980; Perelman, 1980). An
important concern addressed by Chapman (1974), Wright (1974), Green
(1975), Coeterier and Dijkstra (1976) and Leonard and Cobham (1977) is the
effect of change, on both landscape values and perceptions, of landscape
quality in rural areas.
A significant group of papers address the visual effects and impacts of struc-
tures in the landscape including the siting of roads (Tobey, 1965; McHarg,
1967; Stoeckeler, 1968; Clamp, 1975,1976; Schroeder and Daniel, 1980),
the identification of scenic highways (Jones et al., 1976; Evans and Wood,
1980) and the visual impacts of various structures including buildings in park
and recreation areas (Fitzsimmons, 1977; Wohlwill, 1978; Wohlwill and
16

Harris, 1980), dams (Skjold, 196’7; Rodenas et al., 1975) and utility transmis-
sion structures (Price, 1976; Schomaker, 1978). Jacobs and Way (1969) and
Williamson et al. (1978) have studied the capability of vegetation to screen
structures in the landscape and reduce their visual impacts. The majority of
this research has been conducted in the United States and is responsive to
the needs of environmental impact reporting.
Coast and river studies represent examples of landscape planning in special
environments. Gilchrist (1971), Jones et al., (1974), Kifer (1975) and Steinitz
(1979) report on management studies and criteria for scenic rivers and marine
sanctuaries. Carls (1979) discusses coastal recreation development and aes-
thetics, Wallace (1974) proposes a procedure for determining coastal character
and landscape quality while Hall (1974), Banerjee (1977), Byrne (1979-
1980) and Turner (1972) address a broader array of landscape values, includ-
ing beauty, in planning studies of the coastal zone.
As noted previously, the majority of the recreation studies employ psycho-
physical approaches and are distinguished from forest recreation and the
specialized landscape planning studies by an emphasis on the recreational
activity or the social context of the activity as well as the landscape in which
it takes place. In addition, three of the papers falling in the expert paradigm
are concerned with methods for identifying recreation landscapes, including
the use of aerial photography (Lindsay, 1969) computer based information
systems (Duffield and Coppock, 1975), and numerical rating systems (Hart
and Graham, 1967).
Five papers report on research designed to assess user preferences for, or
satisfaction with, specific kinds of recreational settings and to identify salient
physical landscape variables associated with preference. Recreational settings
include ski resorts (Ewing and Kulka, 1979), campgrounds (Hancock, 1973;
Foster and Jackson, 1979; Heberlein and Dunwiddie, 1979), recreational
rivers (Knopp et al., 1979) and hiking trails (Shafer and Mietz, 1969). Carls
(1974) and Price (1979) expand the investigation of recreation preferences
and consider the effects of crowding as an intervening variable. Papers by
Ovington et al. (1974) and Frissell et al. (1980) address the relationship of
scenic values in national parks to recreational carrying capacity.
A final set of papers provides critiques and evaluations of various approaches
and methods for landscape perception and assessment research. Arthur (1977)
reviews a number of expert opinion, psychophysical and economical approaches
while Brancher (1969), Gilg (1975), Hamill (1975), and Weinstein (1976)
review specific methods developed by Linton (1968), Fines (1968), Leopold
(1969), and Shafer (1969), respectively. Each critique provides specific sug-
gestions for improving the methods. Carlson (1977) reviews the psycho-
physical approach in general, and the work of Shafer in particular, and argues
in support of the expert approach. Turner (1975) and Briggs and France
(1980) report on comparisons of different methods for evaluating the land-
scape. Penning-Rowsell (1975) and Penning-Rowsell and Hardy (1973) review
different methods for landscape evaluation and suggest that emphasis should
 17

be placed on fitting methods to specific purposes rather than defining the

perhaps elusive, optimal method.
The preceding discussion of the psychophysical and expert paradigms was
primarily concerned with their emphasis on applications to practical manage-
ment decisions; that is, their relationship to specific landscape contexts. The
cognitive and experiential approaches, however, are more strongly concerned
with understanding the human context, and have more direct application to a
theory of landscape perception. The following section on contributions to
theory, then, will concentrate on the cognitive and experiential paradigms.
Cognitive studies are strongly grounded in the mental process of perceiving,
seeking to understand predispositions or interventions in the thought process
that lead to aesthetic appreciation. Perhaps because of this, the cognitive ap-
proach covers the widest range of contexts (Table III), including natural or
natural versus man-made landscapes, and human contexts.
Even in those studies concerned with evaluation of natural landscapes, the
cognitive mode tends to exhibit a strong interest in human evaluative pro-
cesses. Only Zube (1973b) specifically identified physical landscape features
important to scenic evaluation. More interest was placed on the effects of
knowledge and information, professional role, and the context of the ex-
perience. Knowledge and familiarity were seen as important variables in assess-
ments of forests (Buhyoff et al., 1979), rural landscapes (Beckett, 1974),
mountains (Wellman and Buhyoff, 1980), and coastal areas (Nieman, 1980).
In two other studies, deliberate attempts to manipulate evaluative responses
were shown to be effective, one through different labelling of conditions
(Yeiser and Shilling, 1978) and the other through the presentation of informa-
tion designed to influence the subjects’ judgements (Simpson et al., 1976).
Differences between landscape values of professional landscape managers or
designers and the general public were examined in association with wilderness
(Peterson, 1974a) or rural landscapes (Beckett, 1974; Zube, 1973b, 1974).
Zube (1974) also demonstrated the importance of the setting of the actual
landscape evaluation, finding a tendency to focus on materials and objects in
field judgements, and on spatial distribution in office evaluation using maps
and aerial photographs. Another concern with the context of the experience
was seen in the investigation of crowding in recreation areas (Price, 1979).
Concern with outcomes is minimal in the above papers, except for Yeiser and
Shilling (1978), who used’a biophysical measure of emotional response
measured by the galvanic skin response.
It is in the area of the natural/man-made dichotomy that the cognitive
group has done most solid research. Here is where the people concerned with
arousal theory have been concentrating their research, considering the role of
natural versus urban scenery in reducing stress (Ulrich, 1979), the fittingness
of man-made structures in natural settings (Wohlwill and Harris, 1980),
differences in attitudes toward development in parks (Wohlwill and Heft,
1977) and the relationship of landscape complexity and unity to the number
of elements in the scene and their degree of permanence (Acking and Sorte,
18

1973). Acking and S&e also reported work on perceived personality effects
of landscapes, finding dimensions of stability (calm-aggressive) and extrover-
sion (silent-extroverted). Personality was also discussed by Winkel et al.
(1969), as it may affect views of roadside scenery. Lastly, Calvin et al. (1972)
found evaluative, potency and activity factors to be the most important
human qualities and “natural scenic beauty” and “natural force” (water) to
be the most significant landscape elements.
There are several papers in the cognitive group concerned with sociocultural
effects on landscape evaluation. Buhyoff et al. (1978) were concerned with
the degree to which landscape architects could understand their clients’
preferences, and the degree to which they agreed with them. An article by an
architect, Riley (1980), considered the effects of special interest groups in
the development of the American landscape, including “massification and
packaging”, nostalgia, hedonism, and technology. One other article by Riley
(1979) is a discussion of the importance of individual experience in landscape
perception. Sonnenfeld (1969), in his work on the effects of environment, cul-
ture and personality differences in landscape ratings between Eskimos and
Americans, found negative judgements associated with rain, storms and fog,
whereas snow, night, the sun, the moon, the northern lights and seasonal
changes received positive ratings. It should be noted that many of the elements
Sonnenfeld found to be important involve ephemeral conditions and change,
qualities that have been virtually ignored in all but a few landscape evaluation
studies (~though not by landscape artists).
Two critiques in the cognitive group also offer some interesting insights.
Jacques (1980) presents a critique of attempts to ‘objectify’ landscape beauty,
discussing the importance of subjective values that change between social
groups and also over time. Frondorf et al. (1980) go beyond aesthetics to
discuss landscapes that are highly valued portions of the American natural en-
vironment, suggesting that a holistic view of these places would necessarily
require “some humanism” rather than the present tendency to depend heavily
upon scientific judgements when deciding what is to be preserved.
At this point, it is opportune to summarize the contributions of the cogni-
tive group. In terms of landscape, meaningful features have been suggested as
relative relief, land use diversity, water (as scenery and associated with force),
degree of naturalism versus man-made, and complexity and unity. Human fac-
tors affecting scenic assessment are knowledge, education, personality, profes-
sional role, arousal, individual developmental history, and cultural and social
group. Also affecting scenic preference are such contextual features as degree
of crowding or change (in both landscape and human taste), and the labelling
of features. References to outcome involve emotional or aesthetic feelings,
reduction in arousal levels, or feelings of personal satisfaction.
The journal literature in the experiential paradigm is concerned with a
broad range of experience that goes beyond an intellectual conception of aes-
thetics as a response to scenic stimuli or internal mental process alone. In the
experiential approach, aesthetic qualities are not developed for people, but
 19

by people, as products of human transformations of landscape, both mental

and physical. In this condition of mutually interacting elements there is an
awareness of outcomes, especially as it relates to changes in human or land-
scape qualities. There is also a common thread of awareness of the landscape’s
relationship to self or group identity, which is shown in the contexts in
Table III.
Landscape tastes as reflected by national groups can be seen in pioneering
works on English (Lowenthal and Prince, 1965) and American (Lowenthal,
1968) views of desirable landscape qualities. Lowenthal (1975) also discussed
the value of historic landscapes, providing feelings of “continuity, duration,
accretion”, of links with the past that are important to the identity of in-
dividuals and groups. In a subsequent paper he analyzed landscapes valued in
the U.S. Bicentennial celebrations for their statements about American percep-
tions (Lowenthal, 1977). Other concerns with group landscape values include
the relationship between writers and artists perceptions of Wales in 1770-
1830 and the ideas of Romantic beauty at the time (Zaring, 1977), the ac-
culturation of Japanese immigrants to Canada and the use of poetic expres-
sions of aesthetic values in the definition of a sense of place (Kobayashi,
1980), the landscape experience of women on the Oregon Trail in the mid
1800’s (Wilkinson, 1979), and the use of landscape as an expression of group
identity in a New York suburban village (Duncan, 1973).
Although the above works stress group values of landscape, another set of
articles relates to landscape value as individual expression. Aiken (1976) dis-
cussed the relationship between sense of place and landscape quality, and also
examined perspective, scale, and motion as they affect individual perceptions
of landscape. Newby (1979) suggested that the meaning of landscape is tied
in with redundancy of experience, in terms of simplicity of landscape form,
repeated visits to a place, and associations of stereotyped landscapes with
certain experiences. Unwin (1975) asserted that the landscape is evaluated in
a very different way than works of art, the differences relating to the observ-
er’s position inside a landscape, the effects of peripheral or previous views in
making comparisons with the view under consideration, an orientation toward
action, and the importance of “meanings or atmosphere” not visibly expressed
on the landscape. On this individual level there is also a concern with landscape
relationships to individual creativity or self-development. Matro (1978)
thought that perception of landscape is a creative activity and ought to be
studied through examination of creative expressions, such as poetry. Relph
(1979) also sees aesthetic ordering of landscape as a “creative synthesis” that
can be an expression of identity and an inspiration for transcendental ex-
perience.
There is also one rather thoughtful review from the experiential point of
view (Lowenthal, 1978), presenting a rationale for the study of uniquely
favored landscapes. In this review, Lowenthal also criticized expert judge-
ments and public opinion surveys, favoring examination of: “Landscapes
specifically created to give pleasure, tourists’ and travellers’ accounts of visits
20

to favored localities, and written and painted delineations of scenery . . .”

(Lowenthal, 1978, p. 411).
This emphasis on examination of literary and artistic creations as the basis
for study of landscape aesthetics is a common theme through much of the ex-
periential work. The major justification for this emphasis appears to be the
reasoning that the experience of aesthetic landscapes or landscape elements is
best seen through the aesthetic creations they inspire. The theoretical position
of the experiential paradigm forces an emphasis on methodolo~es that are
not passive or judgemental, but involve an active process of interacting between
humans and landscape. Literary and artistic expressions of landscape values
are the most important of these sources of information, although their use
leaves the experiential approach open to charges of ‘elitism’. There are in-
vestigations of other methods to study the experience of landscape, including
ex~ination of ordinary diaries (Atkinson, 1979), and study of changes in
the landscape itself (Duncan, 1973).
The experiential paradigm views both landscape and humans as mutually-
interacting entities, landscape values developing over time in association with
the individuals or groups (e.g. national, socio-economic, sex) in the interact-
ing system. The outcomes are of special concern, emphasized by the concen-
tration on literature and art as creative expressions generated by that interac-
tion. The outcomes, for the most part, can be seen as change, i.e. develop-
ment or deterioration of landscape and individual or group self-identity. Re-
searchers in the experiential paradigm are less concerned with the identifica-
tion of ‘universals’ or general aesthetic attributes common to all humans and
more concerned with examination of values as they grow out of certain situa-
tions, hence this search for ‘uniquely valued’ landscapes.

TOWARDS A THEORY OF LANDSCAPE PERCEPTION

Considering that much of the effort in aesthetic assessment of landscape

has concentrated on practical, m~agement-o~ented issues, it is perhaps
questionable that a theoretical framework is necessary. After all, the basic
mandate for much of the work was to identify ‘landscape beauty’ so that it
could be included in environmental management, planning and design decision
and policy-making. However, there are a number of issues raised in our review
that demonstrate the need for an adequate theoretical foundation, even in ap-
plied work.
As Appleton (1975b) asserted in his comments on theory, the lack of an
underlying theoretical structure does not allow a rational basis for “diagnosis,
prescription and prognosis”. That is, we lack the fundamental principles neces-
sary to identify a condition, prescribe an intervention for improving (or main-
taining) that condition, or predict the consequences of the intervention. Be-
yond this, it is also necessary to make explicit the assumptions that we make
about how landscapes are perceived, just as (to continue Appleton’s medical
analogy) it is important to know whether a doctor considers disease to be
caused by germs or bad humors.
 21

“In collecting value-judgements, however objectively, and converting them

into the basis of scientific conclusions, we should not deceive ourselves into
believing that this can be done without making many assumptions about the
fundamental nature of aesthetic experience and its relationship to the enjoy-
ment of landscape; and if we are short of theory at the fundamental level this
cannot fail to have implications for the super structure.” (Appleton, 1975b,
p. 123).

The point made above by Appleton is that understanding is not simply a

basic scholarly endeavor, but necessary for rationalizing applications. The as-
sumptions behind our recommendations must be made explicit and be exam-
ined. For example, is scenic beauty an objective property that lies within the
landscape or a subjective impression based on personal predispositions and
mental processing of information? Or is aesthetic value a constant over time
and among different groups? An even more basic question deals with whether
or not all researchers are measuring the same aesthetic, e.g. is Wohlwill’s
(1976) search for aesthetic universals that relate to arousal comparable to
Lowenthal and Prince’s (1965) identification of English landscape tastes? To
relate these disparate studies, some sort of framework is necessary for gener-
alizing across contexts and issues.
The same framework is necessary for guiding further research, both basic
and applied. Basic research needs to concentrate on the assumptions and as-
sess their validity. Applied research needs to develop those techniques of most
value to management decisions, i.e. to identify those landscape elements that
are most amenable to preservation or enhancement. But it must be emphasized
that basic and applied research cannot be separated, the empirical work must
have a solid, rational theory behind it.
In response to the considerable body of legislation enacted in the 1960s and
increased public concern about the landscape, research has been conducted
to provide information on how to manage, plan and design landscapes to make
them more beautiful, but little has been done to demonstrate that this work
has value. In the face of current increasing administrative and legislative con-
cerns with cost-effectiveness, where is the proof that we are providing a useful
service in identifying landscape beauty? The proof lies in the understanding
that the appreciation of beauty is not only desirable but is important in the
development of thinking, caring human beings. An attempt (such as this re-
view) to marshal support on empirical and rational levels, for landscape
beauty as a valuable or necessary concomitant to human quality and well-
being is lacking most notably in those realms most concerned with the im-
plementation of scenic assessments into landscape planning and management
decisions. So how do we defend our notion that a scenic landscape adds more
to the human condition than the coal that can be strip mined from beneath it,
when we have no clear idea of what it adds? The justification for scenic
beauty lies in understanding the nature of interactions between humans and
landscapes and the outcomes of the experience (as a cost-effective approach
looks at financial outcomes). It is precisely these areas of landscape percep-
22

tion that have been either ignored or viewed too narrowly in three out of the
four paradigms mentioned. Questions of why some landscapes are valued more
than others and the significance of those values remain largely unanswered.

A theore tical framework

To develop a theoretical framework that is both rational and practical, we

propose to buiId on the work of Ittelson in en~onment~ psychology. In a
review of perception research written several years ago, Ittelson (1973) drew
three general conclusions about the nature of perceiving: (1) “perceiving is
relatively free from direct control of the stimulus”; (2) “it is inseparably
linked to, and indeed indistinguishable from, other aspects of psychological
functioning”; and (3) “perceiving is relevant and appropriate to the environ-
mental context in which it occurs”. He provided further guidance for the
structuring of a theoretical framework by identifying a set of minimum con-
siderations, drawn from the above general conclusions, “which must be
taken into account in any adequate study of environment perception” (1973,
p. 12-15). These considerations appear below as we have adapted them to
apply to landscape perception:
(1) Landscapes surround. They permit movement and exploration of the
situation and force the observer to become a participant.
(2) Landscapes are multimodal. They provide information that is received
through multiple senses and that is processed simultaneously.
(3) Landscapes provide peripheral as well as central information. Informa-
tion is received from behind the p~icip~t as well as from in ffont, from out-
side the focus of attention as well as within.
(4) Landscapes provide more information than can be used. They can
simultaneously provide redundant, inadequate, ambiguous, conflicting and
contradictory information.
(5) Landscape perception always involves action. Landscapes cannot be
passively observed, they provide oppo~unities for action, control and manip-
ulation.
(6) Landscapes call forth actions. They provide symbolic meanings and
motivational messages that can call forth purposeful actions.
(7) Landscapes always have an ambience. They are almost always en-
countered as part of a social activity, they have a definite aesthetic quality
and they have a systemic quality (various components and events are related).
related).
The first four conditions relate to stimulus properties and have been a
traditional part of perception research. The last three conditions, concerned
with actions, meanings, motivations and ambience are essential additions for
landscape research, as they address the questions of outcomes. AlI of the con-
ditions are based on the recognition that the central issue is the interaction
between humans and landscape.
Perhaps the most notable characteristic of the current state of landscape
 23

perception literature is separation. Most theoretical contributions to landscape

perception are to be found in books or symposium proceedings; most ap-
plications research is reported in the journal literature or in separate ‘applied
techniques’ symposia. Those journals that do publish theoretical articles tend
not to carry applications articles, and vice versa. Our survey of the literature
encountered a scattering of approaches from diverse theoretical backgrounds:
art theory; ecological concepts; stimulus-response behaviorism; signal detec-
tion theory; adaptations theories such as “opt~um stimulus level”, “pros-
pect-refuge”, and “information processing”; personal construct theory;
behavior-setting theory; phenomenology; and transactional theory.
A further form of separation has been the tendency in much of the research
to focus on elements (elements of the human components of the landscape)
rather than on the perceptual interaction. This ‘elemental’ focus leads to
descriptive research, concentrating on the ‘what’ of landscape perception
rather than on the ‘how’ or ‘why’. Thus, at this time when part of perception
research stems from various theoretical origins and part has grown out of a
pragmatic need generated by legal mandates for management for landscape
quality, the most pressing need is for a basic model to which landscape per-
ception research and theory can be fitted and related into a whole.
Despite the notable ch~ac~ristic of separation in the literature, several
relationships among the four paradigms are apparent from analysis of this
literature. These relationships indicate the potential for the development of
an integrated theoretical framework. The expert and psychophysical para-
digms share a strong emphasis on applications and tend towards implicit as-
sumptions about the human models. They also share a common orientation
towards interaction outcomes which tend to be unidimension~ and judge-
mental in nature. The expert and cognitive paradigms have some common
attributes in respect to views of the landscape, in particular to the composi-
tional qualities that define landscape quality, for example: edges, complexity
and mystery. The expert and experiential paradigms share a common emphasis
on aggregate responses. The cognitive and experiential paradigms tend to share
a common interest in the meaning of landscape and of the meaning of the
human-landscape interaction outcome. They, therefore, also tend to be more
theoretically explicit. Finally, from expert through psychophysical and
cognitive to experiential, the paradigms vary in fairly consistent patterns with
respect to the human and landscape components of the perception model:

Concepts Expert Psychophysical Cognitive Experiential

Human Passive > Active

Landscape Dimensional > Holistic

The conceptual interaction process presented earlier (see Fig. 1) provides a

framework for organizing the various approaches into one system of landscape
perception. In this framework, research in all four paradigms can be placed in-
to a complementary scheme, depending on their emphasis on landscape,
24

human or outcome qualities. Figure 3 illustrates this process and provides a

variety of elements that help to define the components as presented in research
to date; it also provides hints about the direction of future research.
Examination of this theoretical hamework suggests that two major areas of
investigation are the nature of the interactions and the outcomes. The frag-
mentary nature of the research is quite evident; some concentrates on human
qualities, some on landscape properties, and some on outcomes. However,
very little has been done to suggest how human-landscape-outcome interac-
tions interrelate. It is important, then, to shift emphasis from the several com-
ponents of the process to the interactions within and among human, land-
scape and outcome elements. Understanding interactions will contribute to
answering questions of why landscapes are perceived as they are, what they
mean to individuals and groups and how they contribute to one’s sense of
well being or quality of life. Investigation of the connections and relation-
ships between and among elements already found to be important in previous
research (for example, those shown in Fig. 3) is an important first step towards
understanding interactions and towards developing a theory of landscape per-
ception.

INTERACTION
.person-person-landscape
.person-group-landscape
.person-landscape
*active .PLSSiWd
.purposeful .accidental
-habitual

*Information .OppOrt”nity
-Satisfaction *values
*Predictive Equations
*Salient Lnndscape

Fig. 3. Landscape perception (interaction) process.

A close look at the outcomes suggests a wide range from the sublime to
the mundane. Management related outcomes are limited in terms of descrip-
tive statistics or predictive equations that are poorly (if at all) related to out-
 25

comes of human quality. Once again, it must be emphasized that for scenic
quality to maintain an important position in landscape movement decisions,
it must be shown to be as significant a contribution to improving the human
condition as economic or social factors. This accounting requires that research
take an expanded view of outcomes to relate landscape evaluations to human
quality and well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

The intent of this paper has been to identify the conceptual or theoretical
paradigms that have been followed in research to date, and to consider the
strengths and weaknesses of those paradigms in cont~but~g to landscape
planning and management issues and to a theory of landscape perception. The
review has identified a conspicuous theoretical void in the majority of the re-
search, especially in the journals. As a result it is difficult, at best, to assess
the cumulative contribution of a considerable body of literature to the
significance of had-l~dscape interactions and outcomes relating to
quality of life and well-being. The landscape perception process offered here
is suggested as a reference point for landscape perception research that can
contribute incrementally and cumulatively to the delineation and substantia-
tion of a general theory.
Research without a general theory is fragmentary and has a hit-or-miss
quality to it, it is hard to understand how various research efforts fit to-
gether, or indeed, if they are measuring the same thing. On the practical level,
descriptions and predictions of landscape quality and management interven-
tions suffer from a lack of sufficient justification that comes from understand-
ing the nature of the human-landscape interaction and the resulting out-
comes. The first phase of landscape quality research was conducted in a more
or less benevolent atmosphere (in both the U.S.A. and Britain) where scenic
quality was assumed to be important by national leaders. That phase is ended.
To continue in the same atheoretical way in present research is to risk loss of
consideration of scenic values in future landscape policy decisions. It is
wo~hwh~e, therefore, for all students of landscape quality to consider such
theoretical frameworks as the one presented in this effort, and to develop a
theory that will support continued importance of scenic quality in landscape
management.

REFERENCES

Acking, C.A. and Sorte, G.J., 1973. How do we verbalize what we see? Landscape
Arch., 63: 120-125.
A&en, S.R., 1976. Towards landscape sensibility. Landscape, 20: 20-28.
Appleton, J., 1975a. The Experience of Landscape. John Wiley, New York, NY, 293 pp.
Appleton, J., 1975. Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr.,
66: 120-123.
26

Appleton, J. (Editor), 1979. The Aesthetics of Landscape. Rural Plann. Serv. Oxford,
Publ. No. 7,S5 pp.
Arthur, L.M., 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical
tests. For. Sci., 23: 151-160.
Arthur, L.M. and Baster, R.S., 1976. Measuring scenic beauty: a selected annotated bthli-
ography. U.S. For. Serv., Rocky Mountain For. Range Exp. Stn., Fort Collins, CO,
34 PP.
Arthur, L-M., Daniel, T.C. and Baster, R.S., 1977. Scenic assesment: an overview. Landscape
Plann., 4: l.O9-129.
Banerjee, T., 1977. Who values what? Audience reaction to coastal scenery. Landscape
Arch., 67: 240-243.
Beckett, P.H.T., 1974. The interaction between knowledge and aesthetic appreciation.
Landscape Res, News, l(8): 5-7.
Berylne, D.E., 1960. Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. McGrawHil1, New York, NY, 350 pp.
Berylne, D.E., 1971. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. Appleton-Century--Crofts, New York,
NY, 336 pp.
Blacksell, M. and Gilg, A.W., 1975. Landscape evaluation in practice - the case of South-
east Devon. Inst. Br. Geogr., Trans,, 66: 135-140.
Brancher, D-M., 1969. Critique of ED. Fines: Landscape evaluation. A research project
in East Sussex. Reg. Stud., 3: 91-92.
Brancher, D.M., 1972. The minor road in Devon - a study of visitor’s attitudes. Reg.
Stud., 6: 49-68.
Briggs, D.J. and France, J., 1980. Landscape evaluation: a comparative study. J. Environ.
Manage., 10: 263-275.
Brush, R.O., 1979. The attractiveness of woodlands: Perceptions of forest landowners in
Massachusetts, For. Sci., 25: 495-506.
Brush, R.G. and Shafer, E.L., Jr., 1975. Application of a landscape-preference model to
iand management. In: E.H. Z&be, R.G. Brush and J.G. Fabos (Editors), Landscape As-
sessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Strouds-
burg, PA, pp. 168-182.
Buhyoff, G.J., 2979, A methodological note on the reliability of observationiy gathered
time-spent data. J. Leisure Res., II: 334-342.
Buhyoff, G.J. and Leuschner, W.A., 1978. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged
forest stands. For. Sci., 26: 227-230.
Buhyoff, G.J., Leuschner, W.A. and Wellman, J.D., 1979. Aeithetic impacts of southern
pine beetle damage. J. Environ. Manage., 8: 261-267.
Buhyoff? G.& Leuschner, W.A. and Arndt, LX., 1980. Replication of a scenic preference
function. For. Sci., 26: 227-230.
Buhyoff, G-J- and Riesenman, M.F., 1979. Manipufation of dimensionahty in landscape
preference judgements: a quantitative validation. Leisure Sci., 2: 221-238.
Buhyoff, G.J., Wellman, J.D., Harvey, H. and Fraser, R.A., 1978. Landscape architect’s
interpretations of people’s landscape preferences. J. Environ. Manage., 6: 255-262.
Buhyoff, G.J. and Wellman, J.D., 1980, The specification of a non-linear psychophysical
function for visual landscape dimensions. J. Leisure Res., 12: 257-272.
Burke, R.E., 1975, National Forest visual management: a blend of landscape and timber
management. J. For., 73: 767~-170.
Byrne, SM., 1979-1980. Perception of the landscape in the Lands End Peninsufa. Land-
scape Res., 5: 2.X-24.
C&in, J.S., Dearinger, J.A. and Curtin, ME, 1972. An attempt at assessing preferences
for natural landscape. Environ. Behavior, 4: 447-470.
Carls, E.G., 1974. Tbe effects of people and man-induced conditions on preference for
outdoor recreation landscapes. J. Leisure Res., 6: ! 13-124.
Carls, E.G., 1979, Coastal recreation: aesthetics and ethics. Coastal Zone Manage., 5:
119-130.
 27

Carlson, A.A., 1977. On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landscape Plann., 4:
131-172.
Carruth, D.B., 1977. Assessing scenic quality: transmission line siting. Landscape, 22:
31-34.
Cerny, J.W., 1972. Landscape amenity assessment bibliography. Council Plann. Librarians,
Exchange Bibliogr., Monticello, IL, 8 pp.
Chapman, V., 1974. Reactions to developments in the countryside in terms of landscape
change. Landscape Res. News, l(7): 4-7.
Clamp, P., 1975. A study in the evaluation of landscape and the impact of roads. Land-
scape Res. News, l( 11): 6-7.
Clamp, P., 1976. Evaluating English landscapes - some recent developments. Environ.
Plann., Ser. A, 8: 79-92.
Clay, G., 1965. The woodland scene: time for another look. Landscape Architecture, 56:
28-29.
Clynes, M., 1969. Toward a theory of man: precision of essentic form in living communica-
tions. In: N. Leibovic and J.C. Eccles (Editors), Information Processing in the Nervous
System. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Coeterier, J.F. and Dijkstra, H., 1976. Research on the visual perception and appreciation
of and visual changes in a hedgerow landscape. Landscape Plann., 3: 451-452.
Cook, W.L., Jr., 1972. An evaluation of the aesthetic quality of forest trees. J. Leisure Res.,
4(4): 293-302.
Countryside Commission for Scotland, 1971. A Planning Classification of Scottish Land-
scape Resources. Battleby, Redgorton, Perth, 83 pp.
Craik, K.H., 1975. Individual variations in landscape description. In E.H. Zube, R.O.
Brush and J.G. Fabos (Editors), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Re-
sources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 130-150.
Crofts, R.S., 1975. The landscape component approach to landscape evaluation. Inst. Br.
Geogr., Trans., 66: 124-129.
Cros, S., Diebold, M.C. and Luginbohl, Y., 1980. Fostering public awareness of the land-
scape during the preparation of a rural development plan for the Argonne region. Land-
scape Plann., 7: 263-279.
Crystal, J.H. and Brush, R.O., 1978. Measuring scenic quality at the urban fringe. Land-
scape Res., 3: 9-11, 14.
Daniel, T.C. and Boster, R.S., 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty
estimation method. U.S. D.A. For. Serv., Res. Pap. RM-167.
Daniel, T.C., Anderson, L.M., Schroeder, H.W. and Wheeler, L., III, 1978. Mapping the
scenic beauty of forest landscapes. Leisure Sci., 1: 35-52.
Dearden, P., 1980. A statistical method for the assessment of visual landscape quality for
land-use planning purposes. J. Environ. Manage., 10: 51-68.
Dearden, P., 1981. Public participation and scenic quality analysis. Landscape Plann., 8 :
3-19.
Dearden, P. and Rosenblood, L., 1980. Some observations on multi-variate techniques in
landscape evaluation. Reg. Stud., 14: 99-110.
Dewey, J. and Bentley, A.F., 1949. Knowing and the Known. Beacon, Boston, MA, 334 pp.
Duffield, B.S. and Coppock, J.T., 1975. The delineation of recreational landscapes: the
role of a computer based information system. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 66: 141-148.
Duncan, J.S., Jr., 1973. Landscape taste as a symbol of group identity: a Westchester
County village. Geogr. Rev., 63: 334-355.
Elsner, G. and Smardon, R.C., 1979. Our National Landscape. U.S. For. Serv., Pacific
Southwest For. Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, CA, 725 pp.
Evans, G.W. and Wood, K.W., 1980. Assessment of .environmental aesthetics in scenic
highway corridors. Environ. Behavior, 12: 245-273.
Ewing, G.O. and Kulka, T., 1979. Revealed and stated preference analysis of ski resort
attractiveness. Leisure Sci., 2: 249-275.
28

Fabos, J.G., 1974. Putting numbers on qualities: the rising landscape assessor. Landscape
Arch., 64: 78-79.
Feimer, N.R., Smardon, R.C. and Craik, K.H., 1981. Evaluating the effectiveness of ob-
server based visual resource and impact assessment methods, Landscape Res., 6: 12-16.
Feste, J. and Otterholm, A., 1974. Estimation of imageability and aesthetic quality of
natural landscape. Landscape Res. News, l(8): 8.
Fines, K.D., 1968. Landscape evaluation: a research project in East Sussex. Reg. Stud., 2:
41-55.
Fitzsimmons, A.K., 1977. The impact of development centers on national park landscapes:
the views of senior National Park Service officials. Landscape Plann., 4: 349-358.
Foster, R.J. and Jackson, E.L., 1979. Factors associated with camping satisfaction in
Alberta provincial park campgrounds. J. Leisure Res., 11: 292-306.
Frissell, S.S., Lee, R.G., Stankey, G.H. and Zube, E.H., 1980. A framework for estimating
the consequence of alternative carrying capacity levels in Yosemite Valley. Landscape
Plann., 7: 151-170.
Frondorf, A.F., McCarthy, M.M. and Zube, E.H., 1980. Quality landscapes: preserving
the national heritage. Landscape, 24: 17-21.
Gibson, J.J., 1966. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Houghton Mifflin, Bos-
ton, MA, 335 pp.
Gibson, J.J., 1977. The theory of affordances. In: R. Shaw and J. Bransford (Editors),
Perceiving, Acting and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology. Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
NJ.
Gilchrist, M., 1971. Strategies for protecting rivers. Landscape Arch., 61: 107-108.
Gilg, A.W., 1975. The objectivity of Linton type methods of assessing scenery as a natural
resource. Reg. Stud., 9: 181-191.
Goodall, B. and Whittow, J.B., 1980. The selection of scenic forest drives. Reg. Stud., 14:
85-97.
Goodier, R. and Ball, M.E., 1974. The management of upland broad-leaved woodlands
for nature and landscape conservation. Forestry, Suppl.: Management of Broad-leaved
Woodlands, pp. 59-71.
Green, B.H., 1975. The future of the British countryside. Landscape Plann., 2: 179-195.
Greenbie, B.B., 1975. Problems of scale and context in assessing a generalized iandscape
for particular persons. In: E.H. Zube, R.O. Brush and J.G. Fabos (Editors), Landscape
Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Strouds-
burg, PA, pp. 65-91.
Hall, W.W., Jr., 1974. Household attitudes toward environmental quality in a coastal
South Carolina county. Coast. Zone Manage., 1: 347-364.
Hamill, L., 1975. Analysis of Leopold’s quantitative comparisons of landscape esthetics.
J. Leisure Res., 7:16-28.
Hancock, H.K., 1973. Recreation preference: its relation to user behavior. J. For., 71:
336-337.
Harper, D.B. and Warback, J.D. (Editors), 1976. Visual Quality and the Coastal Zone.
School Landscape Arch., College Environ. Sci. For., State Univ. New York, Syracuse,
NY, 305 pp.
Hart, W.J. and Graham, W.W., 1967. How to rate and rank landscape. Landscape Arch.,
57 : 121-122.
Heath, T., 1975. Environment aesthetics the state of the art, theory, practice and re-
search. Copper and Brass Information Center, Sydney, 66 pp.
Heberlein, T.A. and Dunwiddie, P., 1979. Systematic observation of use levels, campsite
selection and visitor characteristics at a high mountain lake. J. Leisure Res., 11: 306-
316.
Helliwell, D.R., 1976. Perception and preference in landscape appreciation - a review of
the literature. Landscape Res. News, l( 12): 4-6.
 29

Helliwelt, D.R., 1978. The assessment of landscape preferences. Landscape Res., 3: 15-17.
Hodges, C-W., 1978. The measurement of landscape aesthetics. Univ. Toronto, Environ.
Perception Res., Work. Pap. No. 2,52 pp.
Hodgson, R.W. and Thayer, R.L., 1980. ImpIied human influence reduces landscape
beauty. Landscape Plann., 7: 171-179.
Hubbard. H.V. and Kimball, T., 1917. An Introduction to the Study of Landscape Design.
Macmillan, New York, NY, 499 pp.
Ittelson, W.H., 1973. Environment and Cognition. Seminar Press, New York, NY, 187 pp.
Ittelson, W.H. and Cantril, H., 1954. Perception, a Transactional Approach. Doubleday,
New York, NY.
Jackson, J.B., 1970. To pity the plumage and forget the dying bird. In: E.H. Zube (Editor),
Landscapes: Selected Writing of J.B. Jackson. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst,
MA, pp. 132-145.
Jacobs, P. and Way, D., 1969. How much development can Iandscape absorb? Landscape
Arch., 59: 70-72.
Jacques, D.L., 1980. Landscape appraisal: the case for a subjective theory. J. Environ.
Manage., 10: 107-113.
Jones, G.R., 1978. Landscape assessment - where logic and feelings meet. Landscape
Arch., 58: 113-115.
Jones, G.R., Ady, J. and Gray, B.A., 1976. Scenic and recreational highway study for the
state of Washington. Landscape Plann., 3: 151-262.
Jones, G.R., Gray, B, and Sweeney, M., 1974. Saving the Nooksack. Landscape Arch., 64:
94-101.
Kaplan, R., 1979. The green experience. In: S. Kaplan and R. Kaplan (Editors), Human-
scape. Duxbury, North Scituate, MA, pp. 186-193.
Kaplan, S., 1975. An informal model for the prediction of preference. In: E.H. Zube, R.O.
Bush and J.G. Fabos (Editors), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Re-
sources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA.
Kaplan, S., 1979. Perception and landscape: conceptions and misconceptions. In: G.H.
Elsner and R.C. Smardon (Editors), Our National Landscape. U.S. D. A. For. Serv.
General Tech. Rep. PSW-35.
Kates, R., 1967. The pursuit of beauty in the environment. Landscape, 16: 21-25.
Kifer, R.R., 1975. NOAA’s marine sanctuary program. Coastal Zone Manage. J., 2: 177-
188.
Knapp, T.B., Ballman, G. and Merriam, KC., Jr., 1979. Toward a more direct measure of
river user preferences. J. Leisure Res., 11: 317-326.
Kobayashi, A., 1980. Landscape and the poetic act: the role of Haiku clubs for the Issei.
Landscape, 24: 42-47.
Kreimer, A., 1977. EnvironmentaI preferences: a critical analysis of some research
methodologies. J. Leisure Res., 9: 88-97,
Laurie, LC., 1975. Aesthetic factors in visual evaluation. In: E.H. Zube, R.O. Bush and
J.G. Fabos (Editors), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources.
Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 102-117.
Leonard, P.L. and Cobham, R.O., 1977. The farming landscapes of England and Wales:
a changing scene. Landscape Plann., 4: 205-236.
Leopold, L., 1969. Landscape aesthetics. Nat. Hi&., 73: 36-45.
Levine, R.L. and Langenau, E-E.. Jr., 1979.Attitudes toward clear-cutting and their rela-
tionships to the patterning and diversity of forest recreation activities. For. Sci., 25:
317-327.
Levy, J., 1979. A paradigm for conceptuahzing leisure behavior: towards a person--en-
vironment interaction analysis. J. Leisure Res., 11: 48-60.
Lewis, P.F., Lowenthai, D. and Yi-Fu Tuan, 1973. Visual blight in America. Assoc. Am.
Geogr., Washington, DC, Comm. College Geogr. Res. Pap. No. 23, 48 pp.
30

Lindsay, J.J., 1969. Locating potential outdoor recreation areas from aerial photographs.
J. For., 67: 33-35.
Linton, D., 1968. The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scott. Geogr. Mag.,
84: 219-293.
Litton, R.B., Jr., 1972. Aesthetic dimensions of the landscape. In: J.V. Krutilla (Editor),
Natural Environments: Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 262-291.
Litton, R.B., Jr., 1974. Visual vulnerability of forest landscapes. J. For., 72: 392-397.
Lowenthal, D., 1968. The American scene. Geogr. Rev., 58: 61-88.
Lowenthal, D., 1975. Past time, present place: landscape and memory. Geogr. Rev., 65:
l-36.
Lowenthal, D., 1977. The bicentennial landscape: a mirror held up to the past. Geogr.
Rev,, 67: 249-267.
Lowenthal, D., 1978. Finding valued landscapes. Progr. Human Geogr., 2: 373-418.
Lowenthal, D., 1979. Age and artifact: dilemmas of appreciation. In: D.W. Meinig (Edi-
tor), The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 103-128.
Lowenthal, D. and Prince, H.C., 1965. English landscape tastes. Geogr. Rev., 55: 186-
222.
MacDonald, A.A., 1969. Looking forward: timber forests versus amenity forests. Forestry,
Suppl. Fifty Years On, pp. 122-124.
Marsh, J., 1972. Scenery evaluation and landscape perception: a bibliography. Council
Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography, Monticello, IL, 9 pp.
Matro, T., 1978. Poetry and the effort of perception. Landscape, 22: 14-18.
Matthews, J.D., 1967. Forestry and the landscape. Forestry, 40: 15-20.
McHarg, I., 1967. Where should highways go? Landscape Arch., 57: 179-181.
Meinig, D.W. (Editor), 1979. The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Oxford Uni-
versity Press, New York, NY, 255 pp.
Merleau Ponty, M., 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. Humanities Press, New York,
NY (transi. by C. Smith), 466 pp.
Mu&on, W.F., 1965. Landscape forestry: a new profession. Landscape Arch., 56: 30-31.
Murray, A.C. (Editor), 1967. Methods of landscape analysis. Landscape Res. Group,
London, 49 pp.
Myklestad, E. and Wagar, J.A., 1977. Preview: computer assistance for visual manage-
ment of forestry landscape. Landscape Plann., 4: 313-331.
Nassauer, J., 1980. A non-linear model of visud quality. Landscape Res., 5: 29-31.
Newby, P.T., 1979. Towards an understanding of landscape quality. Landscape Res., 4:
ll--13.16-17.
Nickerson, D.B., 1979. Sightline, perspective plot, scope - three desktop computer pro-
grams for forest landscape design. J. For., 77: 14-17.
Nieman, T.J., 1980. The visual environment of the New York coastal zone: user prefer-
ences and perceptions. Coast. Zone Manage. J., 8: 45-62.
Ovington, J.D., Groves, K,W., Stevens, P.R. and Tanton, M.T., 1974. Changing scenic
values and tourist carrying capacity of national parks. An Australian example. Land-
scape Plann., 1: 35-50.
Palmer, J., 1981. Approaches for assessing visual quality and visual impacts. In: K. Finster-
busch and C.P. Wolf (Editors), Methodology of Social Impact Assessments. Dowden,
Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, 2nd edn., pp. 284-301.
Paulson, M., 1978. Visual information system for low cost terrain analysis. Landscape
Arch., 68: 233-235.
Penning-Rowsell, E.G., 1973. Alternative approaches to landscape appraisal and evaluation.
Middlesex Polytechnic Plann. Res. Group, Middiesex, Rep. No. 11, 51 pp.
Penning-Rows&, EC., 1975. Constraints on the application of landscape evaluations.
Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 66: 149-155.
 31

Penning-Rowsell, E.C., 1979. The social value of English landscapes. In: G.H. Elsner and
R.C. Smardon (Editors), Our National Landscpaes. U.S.D.A. For. Serv., General Tech.
Rep. PSW-35, pp. 249-255.
Penning-Rowsell, EC. and Hardy, D.I., 1973. Landscape evaluation and planning policy:
a comparative survey in the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Naturai Beauty. Reg.
Stud., 7: 153-160.
Penning-Row&, EC. and Searle, G.H., 1977. The “Manchester” landscape evaluation
method : a critical appraisal. Landscape Res., 2 : 6-l 1.
Perelman, R., 1980. Contribution to reflections on rural landscapes. Landscape Plann., 7:
223-228.
Peterson, G.L., 1974a. A comparison of the sentiments and perceptions of wilderness
managers and canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Journal of Leisure Research,
6f3): 194-206.
Peterson, G-L., 1974b. Evaluating the quality of the wilderness environment. Environ.
Behavior, 6: 16S-193.
Price, C., 1976. Subjectivity and objectivity in landscape evaluation. Environ. Plann. Ser.
A, 8: 829-838.
Price, C., 1979. Public preference and the management of recreational congestion. Reg.
Stud., 13: 125-139.
Probst, D.B. and Buhyoff, G.J., 1980. Policy capturing and landscape preference quan-
tification: a methodological study. J, Environ. Manage., 11: 45-59.
Ramos, A., Ramos, F., Cifuentes, P. and Fernandez-Canadas, M., 1976. Visual landscape
evaluation: a grid technique. Landscape Plann., 3: 67-88.
Rasmussen, W.O., Weisz, R.N., Ffolliott, P.F. and Carder, D.R., 1980. Planning for forest
roads - a computer-assisted procedure for selection of alternative corridors. J. Environ.
Manage., 11: 93-104.
Reimold, R.J., Hardisky, M.A. and Phillips, J.H., 1980. Wetland values - a non-consump-
tive perspective. J. Environ. Manage., 11: 77-e.85.
Relph, E.G., 1976. Place and Placelessness. Pion, London, 156 pp.
Relph, E.C., 1979. To see with the soul of the eye. Landscape, 23: 28-34.
Riley, R.B., 1979. Reflections on the fandscape of memory. Landscape, 23: 11-18.
Riley, R.B., 1980. Speculations on the new American landscapes. Landscape, 24: l-9.
Rodenas, M., Sancho-Royo, F. and GonzalesBernaldez, F., 1975. Structure of landscape
preferences: a study based on large dams viewed in their landscape setting. Landscape
Plann., 2: 154-178.
Royal Town Planning Institute, 1980. Countryside Practice. R. Town Plann. Inst., Lon-
don, 48 pp.
Rudolf, P.O., 1967. Silviculture for recreation area management. J. For., 65: 385-
390.
Rutherford, W., Jr. and Shafer, E.L., Jr., 1969. Selection cuts increased natural beauty in
two Adirondack forest stands. J. For., 67: 415-419.
Savrin, J.P., 1980. The compatibility of conifer afforestation with the landscape of the
Monts D’Arree region. Landscape Plann., 7: 295-311.
Schomaker, J.H., 1978. Measurements of preferences for proposed landscape modifica-
tions. Landscape Res., 3: 5-S.
Schroeder, H.W. and Daniel, T.C., 1980. Predicting the scenic quality of forest road cor-
ridors. Environ. Behavior, 12: 349-366.
Seamon, D., 1979. A Geography of the Lifeworld. St. Martin’s, New York, NY, 227 pp.
Shafer, E.L., Jr., 1969. Perception of natural environments. Environ. Behavior, 1: 71-82.
Shafer, E.L., Jr., and Brush, R.O., 1977. How to measure preferences for photographs of
natural landscapes. Landscape Plann., 4: 237&256.
Shafer, E.L., Jr, and Mietz, J., 1969. Aesthetic and emotional experiences rate high with
northeast wilderness hikers. Environ. Behavior, 1: 187-197.
32

Shafer, E.L., Jr., Hamilton, J-F., Jr. and Schmidt, E-A., 1969. Natural landscape prefer-
ences: a predictive model. J. Leisure Res., 1: l-19.
Shuttleworth, S., 1980. The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium
in landscape studies. J. Environ. Manage., 11: 61-76.
Sidaway, R.M., 1977. Research in the design of recreation facilities. Forestry, 50: 67-74.
Simonds, J.O., 1961. Landscape Architecture: The Shaping of Man’s Natural Environ-
ment. F.W. Dodge, New York, NY, 244 pp.
Simpson, C.J., Rosenthal, T.L., Daniel, T.C. and White, G.M., 1976. Social-influence
variations in evaluating managed and unmanaged forest areas. J. Appi. Psychol., 61:
759-763.
Skjold, S., 1967. Early warning system alerts Norwegians to a dam’s visual impact. Land-
scape Arch., 57: 185-187.
Smardon, RX., 1975. Assessing visual-culturai values of inland wetlands in Massachusetts.
In: E.H. Zube, R.O. Brush and J.G. Fabos (Editors), Landscape Assessment: Values,
Perceptions and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 289-3 18.
Sonnenfeld, J., 1969. Equivalence and distortion of the Perceptual environment. Environ.
Behavior, 1: 83-99.
Sopher, D.E., 1979. The landscape of home: myth, experience, social meaning. In: D.W.
Meinig (Editor), The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp. 129-149.
Steinitz, C., 1979. Simulating alternative policies for implementing the Massachusetts
Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act: the North River demonstration project. Landscape
Plann., 6: 51-89.
Stoeckeler, J.H., 1968. Skeletons in the road builders closet. Landscape Arch., 58: 114-
116.
Streeby, L.L., 1970. Scenic management impact on other forest activities. J. For., 68:
430-432.
Taggart, C., Tetherow, T. and Bottomly, B., 1980. Visual values: Colorado takes stock.
Landscape Arch., 70: 396-400.
Thayer, R.L., Jr., 1976. VisuaI ecology: revitalizing the aesthetics of landscape architec-
ture. Landscape, 20: 37-43.
Thayer, R.L., Jr., Hodgson, R.W., Gustke, L.D., Atwood, B.G. and Holmes, J., 1976.
Validation of a natural landscape preference model as a predictor of perceived land-
scape beauty in photographs. J. Leisure Res., 8: 292-299.
Thrail, A.L., 1978. The Manchester landscape evaluation method - a reply to E.C. Penning-
Rowsell and G.H. Searle. Landscape Res., 3: l-3.
Tobey, G.B., 1965. Leave the roadsides alone. Landscape Arch., 55: 182-183.
Tuan, Y.F., 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis, MN, 235 pp.
Turner, T.H.D., 1972. The coastal study as a new technical base. Landscape Arch., 62:
123-127.
Turner, J.R., 1975. Applications of landscape evaluation: a planner’s view. Trans. Inst.
Br. Geogr., 66: 156-161
Twiss, R.H., 1969. Conflicts in forest landscape management - the need of forest environ-
mental design. J. For., 67: 19-23.
Ulrich, R.S., 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Res., 4:
17-23.
US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1973-1980. National Forest Landscape
Management, Vols. 1 and 2. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management., 1980a. Visual Resource
Management Program. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 39 pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1980b. Visual Simulating
Techniques. U.S. Government Printing Office, W~hington, DC, 38 pp.
 33

Unwin, EL, 1975. The relationship of observer and landscape in landscape evaluation.
Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 66: 130-134.
Van Deusen, H.E. and Egler, FE., 1965. Controlling forest appearance by cut and spray.
Landscape Arch., 56: 32-34.
Wagar, J.A., 1975. Recreation insights from Europe. J. For., 73: 353-357.
Wallace, B.C., 1974. Landscape evaluation and the Essex coast. Reg. Stud., 8: 299-305.
Weinstein, N.D., 1976. The statistical prediction of environmental preferences. Environ.
Behavior, 8: 611-626.
Wellman, J.D. and Buhyoff, G.J., 1980. Effects of regional familiarity on landscape prefer-
ences. J. Environ. Manage., 11: 105-110.
Wigg, L.T., 1969. Forestry in a national park: the Exmoor excursion, 1968. Forestry, 42:
37-46.
Wilkinson, N.L., 1979. Women on the Oregon Trail. Landscape, 23: 43-47.
Williamson, D.N. and Calder, SW., 19’79. Visual resource ma~gement of Victoria’s forests:
a new concept for Australia. Landscape Plann., 6: 313-341.
Williamson, D.N., Fabos, J.Gy. and MacConnell, W.P., 1978. Seeing the forest as camouflage.
Landscape Arch., 68: 44.
Winkel, G.H., Malek, R. and Theil, P., 1969. The role of personality differences in judge-
ments of roadside quality. Environ. Behavior, 1: 199-223.
Wohlwill, J.F., 1976. Environmental aesthetics: the environment as a source of affect.
In: I. Altman and J.F. Wohlwill (Editors), Human Behavior and Environment, Vol. 1,
Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 37-86.
Wohlwill, J.F., 1978. What belongs where: research on the fittingness of man-made struc-
tures in natural settings. Landscape Res., 3: 3-5.
Wohlwill, J.F. and Harris, G., 1980. Response to congruity or contrast for man-made
features in natural recreation settings. Leisure Sci., 3: 349-365.
Wohlwih, J.F. and Heft, H., 1977. A comparative study of user attitudes towards devel-
opment and facilities in two contrasting natural recreation areas. J. Leisure Res., 9:
264-280.
Workman, J.H.B., 1974. Broadleaved woodland in the British landscape. Forestry, Suppl.
Management of Broad-leaved Woodlands, pp. 42-46.
Wright, G., 1974. Appraisal of visual landscape qualities in a region selected for accelerated
growth. Landscape Plann., 1: 307-327.
Yarrow, C., 1966. A preliminary survey of the public’s concepts of amenity in British
forestry. Forestry, 39: 59-67.
Yeiser, J.L. and Shilling, C.L., 1978. Student responses to selected terms and scenes in
natural resource management. J. For., 76: 497-498.
Zaring, J., 1977. The romantic face of Wales. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 67: 397-418.
Zarmati, S., 1980. Landscape practice and methodology in the French planning process.
Landscape Plann., 7: 203-221.
Zube, E.H. (Editor), 1970. Landscapes: Selected Writings of J.B. Jackson. University of
Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA, 160 pp.
Zube, E.H., 1973a. Scenery & a natural resource. Landscape Arch., 63: 4-10.
Zube, E.H., 1973b. Rating every day rural landscapes of the Northeastern US. Landscape
Arch., 63: 92-97.
Zube, E.H., 1974. Cross-disciplinary and intermode agreement on the description and
evaluation of landscape resources. Environ. Behavior, 6: 69-89.
Zube, E.H., Anderson, T. and Pitt, D.H., 1973-1974. Measuring the landscape: perceptual
responses and physical dimensions. Landscape Res. News, l(6): 4-6.
Zube, E.H., Brush, R.O. and Fabos, J.Gy. (Editors), 1975. Landscape Assessment: Values,
Perceptions and Resources. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, PA, 367 pp.