Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Review

Towards landscape visual quality evaluation: methodologies, technologies,

and recommendations
Ning Kang a, b, Chunqing Liu a, c, *
a
College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
b
College of Art, Hubei Polytechnic University, Huangshi 435003, China
c
Jiangxi Rural Culture Development Research Center, Nanchang 330045, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: It is well established that landscape quality evaluations have the potential to serve as a contextual basis for the
Landscape integration of cultural ecosystem services into landscape management and policies. Nonetheless, the methods for
Visual quality evaluation assessing the visual quality of landscapes are varied and there is no consensus on the appropriate choice of
Visual resources
landscape evaluation indicators or approaches. In response, we conducted a comprehensive review of the
literature on this topic to highlight the methods used and identify major methodological strategies. It examines
the ways and technologies, particularly in which quantitative measures, or indicators, can be used and what
contribution they might make to the management and planning of landscapes. In this paper, a comprehensive
electronic literature was performed via two electronic databases (Web of Science, and Chinese National
Knowledge Infrastructure). Our review indicated that if objective results are expected in studies on landscape
quality evaluation, experts’ view should not be the only source and the view of users, the physical, biological,
and social characteristics of the environment should also be considered together. In this context, continuously
renewed and revised analysis studies provide a basis for the plan of shaping the visual configuration of the
landscape. The contribution of this paper lies in presenting and reviewing the methodologies and techniques of
landscape evaluation and providing practical advice for their appropriate selection and application, in addition
to encouraging discourse of the professional community about this topic.

1. Introduction environmental problems increases. Landscape is not just a financial

The scenery around us has been fostered through long-term in­
teractions between humans and the natural world. As time goes on, the
intensity and amplitude of landscape changes generated by human ac­
tivity has risen substantially, affecting the landscape’s function and
appearance (Asur, 2019). Conservation policies proposed by the United
States and Europe emphasized the urgency of landscape change that
provided a framework for collaborative intergovernmental efforts to
preserve landscape quality and characteristics (Sameh et al., 2021). The
subsequent ecosystem service framework regarding landscape aesthetics
as an essential cultural ecological service further paid more attention to
the significance of landscape visual quality (Arriaza et al., 2004; Milcu
et al., 2013). Therefore, landscape visual quality evaluation provided a
contextual basis for the integration of cultural ecosystem services into
landscape management and policies. Second, people are paying more
attention to the value of natural resources as the severity of
issue, but it is also an aesthetic one that can be evaluated and discussed.
As a result, when it comes to discussing landscape as an aesthetic entity,
visual quality assessment has become an essential research topic (Mar­
tínez-Harms et al., 2012). However, measuring the visual quality of
landscapes still faces challenges due to subjective preferences of users,
especially in areas with complex environments and long social and
cultural history (Wang et al., 2007).
Our review indicates that researchers such as geographers, forest
scientists, ecologists, psychologists, and behaviorists have been devel­
oping standardized visual quality evaluation procedures using psycho­
logical and behavioral preference methods since the 1960s, in response
to the need for environmental protection and the establishment of na­
tional parks and nature reserves (Yu, 1987, 2008). It’s worth noting that
the early landscape evaluation frequently refers to a visual assessment of
landscape quality. In particular, two influential visual resource man­
agement systems (VMS of USDA Forest Service, and VRM of USDI

* Corresponding author at: College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China.
E-mail address: 515189191@qq.com (C. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109174
Received 4 May 2022; Received in revised form 7 July 2022; Accepted 13 July 2022
Available online 28 July 2022
1470-160X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
N. Kang and C. Liu
Burcau of Land Management) (Burton, 1968) and one landscape
resource management system (LMS of USDA Soil Conservation Service)
(Milcu et al., 2013) were proposed in the United States. The VRM system
may perform visual surveys, analyses, and evaluations of large-scale
scenic regions that need to be planned, as well as develop manage­
ment goals and metrics. In general, LMS frameworks views landscape
visual resources as an essential aspect of environmental decision-making
and planning, and are by and large utilized in the administration of
public lands to analyze and establish the scope and intensity of human
activities permitted in public landscapes.
In the 1980s, several landscape aesthetic evaluation researchers
explicitly separated the classification and description of landscape at­
tributes in order to distinguish the difference between the landscape of
one area and another area. For example, Calvin et al. (1972), Craik
(1975) and Daniel (1976) employed the semantic differential approach
to determine the visual quality of a landscape by assessing the prefer­
ences of various landscape elements, highlighting the relevance of
landscape element substitution and semantic description. Then a
growing number of academics focused on the significance of landscape
features in landscape rating, since these characteristics are essential
factors influencing the appraisal of landscape visual quality, as well as
important aspects for the development of local characteristics and the
tourist business. Hull et al. (1986), Kellomaeki and Savolainen (1984),
and Bulut et al. (2008), for example, used psychological, behavioral
preference, and other empirical methods to conduct comprehensive
experience evaluation and single factor evaluation of tourism landscapes
from the perspective of visual aesthetics, and developed the mathe­
matical model of visual quantitative analysis. It is well established that,
after decades of theoretical study and practice, landscape evaluation
research has progressively been subdivided further into four paradigms,
according to the viewpoint of assessment is the “landscape” of the ob­
ject, or the “view” of the subject (Zube, 1974). The four paradigms are
expert paradigm, psychophysical paradigm, cognitive paradigm, and
empirical paradigm respectively. And the professional design-based
assessment and public perception-based evaluation are the two pri­
mary evaluation methodologies for landscape visual quality evaluation.
The most generally used expert paradigm emphasizes the notion of
formal beauty, and the assessment work is conducted by specialists to
evaluate the aesthetic worth of the landscape, such as the Visual Man­
agement System (VMS) and Landscape Management System (SMS) of
the US Forest Service (Bacon, 1979; Li et al., 2002). The psychophysical
paradigm explains the landscape-aesthetic relationship using the stim­
ulus–response relationship, which includes three widely used methods
in landscape evaluation (Wang, 1995), namely the Scenic Beauty Eval­
uation method (SBE) proposed by Daniel (Daniel, 1976; Hull, 1986), the
Law of Comparative Judgement method (LCJ) proposed by Buhyoff
et al. (1982) and Schroeder et al. (1984), and the Semantic Differential
method (SD) proposed by Echelberger (1979). The cognitive paradigm,
which includes Kaplan’s environmental evaluation model (Kaplan,1988;
Javadinejad et al.,2019) and Appleton’s habitat and prospect-refuge
theory (Appleton, 1975), explains human aesthetics to landscape
through evolutionary processes and functional demands. The empirical
paradigm emphasizes people’s subjective involvement in landscape
aesthetics, such as Smaalders’ phenomenological model (Smaalders,
1989; Fox,1989).
Furthermore, Daniel (1983) classified evaluation methods into five
key models: formal aesthetic model, ecological model, psychophysical
model, psychological model, and phenomenological model. Different
evaluation methods have been gradually developed under the guidance
of different paradigms and evaluation modes, such as the Scenic Beauty
Evaluation method (SBE) (Daniel, 1976), Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) (Suh and Yang, 2004), aesthetic evaluation quantity method
(BIB-LCJ) (Yu, 1988), Semantic Differential method (SD) (Arthur,
1977), Physiological and Psychological Indicators method (PPI) (Yang
et al., 2018). Different theoretical models and practical aims result in a
broad range of visual perception research approaches. On the basis of
2
Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174
the topics polled, at least three methods are often defined. One is the
expert-based assessment approach, which is mostly used by specialists in
objective evaluation research and focuses on the evaluation of the
“scene,” encompassing ecological and formal aesthetic models. The
second is to concentrate on the “sensory-based” public preference
technique, which includes psychological and phenomenological models
and user’s methods like questionnaire surveys and public opinion tests
to intimately connect with public subjective judgments. The third way is
quantitative synthesis, which stresses both “scene” and “sensory,” inte­
grating subjective and objective methodologies, such as psychophysical
models and component replacement models.
Although the objectives of landscape evaluation are generally
obvious, developing practical methods to achieve them remains a
challenge. More specifically, since visual quality assessment can be a
study subject in a variety of professional fields, the methods for evalu­
ating the visual quality of the landscapes are varied and there is no
consensus on the appropriate choice of landscape evaluation indicators
or approaches (Kalivoda et al., 2014). Therefore, a summary of the ap­
proaches utilized, together with their advantages and disadvantages, is
required to frame the present state of knowledge regarding landscape
assessment modeling and give recommendations for future study. For
this reason, this current paper is to offer a comprehensive literature
review on the common techniques and unique approaches of landscape
visual quality evaluation, as well as their strengths and weaknesses and
how the was used in practice. Furthermore, we present practical advice
for analysis method selection by assessment objectives or professional
discipline. And at last, directions for approaches improvement and
future research are discussed.
2. Materials and method
The current section sought to investigate the intellectual structure of
landscape assessment studies. To that purpose, we employed a subject
search to gather bibliographic materials from Web of Science (WOS) and
Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The search in the
database above yielded 2246 records and our research were conducted
under the guidance of scientometric methods implemented in Cite Space
(Chen, 2018), a visual analysis framework based on networks of co-cited
documents. The Cite Space may demonstrate how the landscape study
has evolved, what the evident intellectual turning points on the crucial
route are, and what topics have attracted the interest of researchers. In
the context of landscape assessment, this work identified almost 130
available papers that need extensive reading based on this criterion and
got included in our review article.
The topic distribution of landscape quality evaluation may be found
by viewing the results in Cite Space using the “Category” option, as
shown in Fig. 1. Each joint represents the number of papers published,
and its size is proportional to the total papers. It was concluded that the
most publications have been successively published in environmental
science, ecology, biodiversity conservation, geography, forestry,
regional urban planning, and agriculture science. Not only that, but
professional disciplines such as aesthetics, psychology, computer sci­
ence and statistics are essential in the multidisciplinary research of
landscape assessment.
As rendered in Fig. 2, after removing the query phrases (landscape
evaluation, ecology evaluation), the findings of keyword co-occurrence
analysis suggest that “biodiversity“, “agricultural landscape”, ”land
use”, “ecosystem service”, “forest” and “conservation” are the keywords
that have been used for a long time and with a high frequency, which
illustrates the primary focus of landscape assessment research. Fig. 3
visualizes the keywords clustering network (Top ten) through cluster
analysis of keywords with more frequent occurrences. Given the size of
the joint, we regard clusters #0 to #3 (i.e., ecosystem service, landscape
change, diversity, and landscape management) as representing hot
research themes in the domain. The literature in cluster #0, which is
largest one in terms of betweenness centrality, plays a leading role in
N. Kang and C. Liu Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174

Fig. 3. Clustering of keywords.

Fig. 1. Distribution of main research disciplines.

promoting successive research on landscape evaluation.
On the basis of the knowledge mapping, we further perform the burst
detection for high-frequency words, as illustrated in Fig. 4 (Top 20 terms
with the strongest citation bursts), which is aim to keep track of the
thematic trends and temporal developments in landscape evaluation
research. The noun-terms burst, by definition, denotes a rapid growth in
the frequency of usage, and its intensity is measured in “Strength”. The
greater the value, the higher frequency of the keyword used. The length
of the burst is displayed by the red line in the illustration. Referring to
the legend, the topic of landscape elements has the strongest intensity
among the literature, while landscape change and species diversity have

Fig. 2. Keyword co-occurrence analysis.

Fig. 4. Top 20 terms with the strongest citation bursts.

3
N. Kang and C. Liu
long been a concern. Furthermore, there has been growing interest in the
study of rural landscapes recently. Additionally, we found that virtual
reality (VR) technology and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) are
being widely used as fundamental tools for landscape evaluation.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Overview of visual quality evaluation researches and the employed
methods
In the methodological of evaluation research, early scholars pro­
posed that assessment normally consist of three phases (Fig. 5), i.e., data
collection (early stage), evaluation implementation (middle stage), and
data analysis (final stage) (Boster, 1971; Craik, 1975; Iverson et al.,
1993). Among them, the two well-known expert-based and public-based
assessment systems are at the second stage. In the context of evaluation
process, Table 1 provides a list of the initial landmark approaches
employed in landscape visual quality evaluation, and Table 2 exhibits
the implementation of previous methodologies.
As can be seen from the table above, the SBE and LCJ are directly
derived from public subjective perception, which is the expression of
early psychological landscape aesthetic research and the foundation
works of the “psychological measurement method”. Moreover, the VRM,
LRM and VIA methods are all expert-based, and are specifically realized
by assigning values to landscape elements and their contributions to the
overall landscape aesthetic quality of each physical element. Because of
their ease of use, these three methodologies have become the primary
evaluation methods in landscape management systems of many coun­
tries. Furthermore, approaches based on the CIM include the SQ, SD,
Kuang-Ao, POE, and LAP. The addition of language descriptions makes
the review process more comprehensive and adapted to varied land­
scapes in comparison with the public-based SBE and LCJ. However, the
uncertainties of this questionnaire method are the reviewers’ perception
and expression abilities, as well as the design of the questionnaire.
Additionally, interdisciplinary assessment techniques based on algo­
rithms and statistical models, such as the FM, FG, DM, AHP, PPI, IPA, CP,
SBTD, SM, EVA, VLUP, LCQ, and CLM, are the focus and hotspot of the
current research with the advantage of accuracy and objectivity of
results.
Consider the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), in which evaluation
target, evaluation criterions and evaluation objects are decomposed into
the highest, medium, and lowest levels depending on their connection,
as shown in Fig. 6. The highest level refers to the purpose of decision-
making and the problem to be solved. The lowest level refers to the al­
ternatives in decision-making. The middle layer refers to the indictors
considered and the criteria for decision-making. For the two adjacent
layers, the high layer is called the target layer and the low layer is the
Fig. 5. Flowchart of landscape visual quality evaluation.
4
Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174
factor layer.
In general, the conclusions of qualitative analysis are frequently
questioned as determining the weights between indicators at each level.
Consequently, Saaty et al. introduced the consistent matrix method to
improve the accuracy, in which the relative scale is used for pairwise
comparison instead of comparing all the indicators together, to decrease
the difficulty of comparing variables with diverse qualities.
For example, for a given criteria, make a pairwise comparison of its
subordinate indicators and assign marks according to their prominence
as given in Table 3.
Construct the comparison judgment matrix using the evaluation in­
dicator system and hierarchical structure given, defined as,
⎡ ⎤
1 a12 ... a1j
⎢ a21 1 ... a2j ⎥
A=⎢ ⎥ in which, aii = 1; aij = 1 (1)
⎣ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ aji
ai1 ai2 ... aij
Matrix element aij is the comparison result of the importance of in­
dicators i and j,aij = 1/aij .
Solve the eigenvector of the judgment matrix to obtain the priority
weight of each element at same level to an element at the upper level,
and finally merge the final weight of each alternative scheme to the
overall goal by the weighted sum algorithm.
Because of matters like the complexity of evaluation factors, the
hierarchy of evaluation objects, ambiguity in evaluation criterions,
ambiguity or uncertainty of evaluation influencing factors, and inability
of quantifying qualitative indicators, it is difficulty for users to accu­
rately describe the objective reality with absolute “Either A or B”, and
there is frequently a vague phenomenon of “Both A and B”.
As a result, the fuzzy evaluation approach (FM) might be employed
as an alternate strategy in this circumstance. the FM based on fuzzy sets
evaluates the affiliation level of the item under examination from mul­
tiple indicators.
On the one hand, it can consider the hierarchy of objects, high­
lighting the fuzziness of evaluation criteria and influencing factors;
People’s experience, on the other hand, may be fully included into the
assessment to make the results more objective and in accordance with
the real situation. Specifically, the general steps are as follows.
Step 1: Establish the evaluation indicator set, review set and weight
set.
Indicator set is a broad set made up of various factors affecting the
evaluation object, each of which has varied degrees of ambiguity and are
expressed asU = (u1 , u2 , ⋯, un ). Divide the set U into s subfactor sets U1 ,
U2 , ⋯, Us by attributes, whereUi = (ui1 , ui2 , ⋯, uin ), i = 1, 2, ⋯s, and
∑ ⋃s
satisfies si=1 ni = n, i=1 Ui = U, for anyi ∕= j, Ui ∩ Uj = ∅. Make a
comprehensive evaluation for each factor set Ui and construct the review
setV = (v1 , v2 , ⋯, vm ), and then the weight distribution of each indicator
N. Kang and C. Liu
Table 1
List of methods for evaluating landscape visual quality.
Methods
Scenic Beauty Estimation
(SBE)
Law of comparative
judgement (LCJ)
Content Identifying Method
(CIM)
Visual Resource Management
(VRM)
Landscape Resource
Management (LRM)
Visual Impact Assessment
(VIA)
Survey and Questionnaires
(SQ)
Semantic Differential (SD)
Scenic Beauty Temporal
Distribution (SBTD)
Fuzzy mathematics (FM)
Kuang-Ao Degree Evaluation
(Kuang-Ao)
Fractal Geometry (FG)
Saliency Method (SM)
Explanation of Visual
Assessments (EVA)
Delphi Method (DM)
Description
Landscape pictures are scored and turned into scene
beauty degree value based on human visual
perception of the landscape. (Daniel, 1976; Daniel,
1977).
The landscape was sorted by the degree of
attractiveness based on human visual perception by
comparing images of the landscape. (Buhyoff, 1978;
Hull, 1981).
Reviewers were asked to propose the degree of
preference according to the spatial content of the
landscape, and the researchers then analyzed and
extracted the visual features related to each
perceptual variable (Kaplan, 1979; Patrick et al.,
2013).
Based on visual resource management, the
landscape is graded and evaluated, and the
sensitivity is analyzed, and the degree of beautiful
scenery is graded according to the richness of
landscape features (Bacon, 1979).
Based on public land management, the landscape
quality evaluation carried out by considering
ecological social and visual resources (Ross, 1979;
Schauman and Adams, 1979).
Evaluate the degree of beauty before and after
construction or environmental changes according to
the impact or damage to the vision (Feimet, 1981;
Yeomans, 1986).
Collect the reviewers’ aesthetic preferences for the
landscape in the form of surveys and questionnaires
to evaluate the visual quality of the landscape (
McDonald, 1983).
Look for pairs of adjectives describing landscape
factors, and measure the psychological perception
through the verbal scale, to obtain quantitative data
on the reviewers’ perception of the degree of
landscape beauty (Heywood, 1983; Herzog, 1984).
Based on the prediction of the impact of
management measures on landscape quality, the
annual beauty degree in the management planning
period is simulated to predict the future landscape
time distribution performance (Hull, 1986).
For situations that are restricted by multiple
uncertain factors and difficult to quantify in the
evaluation, the Xu Luo-Cao Li fuzzy matrix is used
to calculate the weights to make the evaluation
results more explicit and more systematic (Zhang,
1986; Huang et al., 2002).
Analyzed the openness and depth features of a
garden landscape from the dimensions of element,
space, and sequence to refine the vocabulary of
landscape perception features, and then used a
questionnaire to investigate the corresponding
relationship between landscape visual form features
and visual perception. (Liu, 1988; Liu and Fan,
2014).
Based on the idea of fractal and the unity of
opposites between fractal and non-fractal, the
fractal structure of the landscape elements is used to
study the visual beauty of the landscape (Milne,
1991; Lifton and Chase, 1991; Chen, 1997).
Image processing software is used to modify the
presence, size, and color of buildings or other
structures in landscape photos, and to explore the
relationship between these visual elements and
reviews’ preferences (Burrough, 1994; Dupont
et al., 2017).
The visual evaluation system is composed of an
expert evaluation system to evaluate the natural
characteristics, spatial organization, visual
composition, and artificial characteristics of the
landscape, and eventually to assess the impact of
each component on the overall visual quality of the
landscape (Buhyoff, 1994; Buhyoff, 1998).
5
Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174
Table 1 (continued )
Methods Description
After several rounds of consultation, the opinions of
experts tend to be concentrated, and the collective
judgment results obtained are of high accuracy (Ban
et al., 2008; Pang et al., 2003).
Analytic Hierarchy Process The whole landscape decomposed into various
(AHP) landscape factors, and an evaluation system is
established based on the target layer, criterion layer
and index layer. The relative importance of each
factor determined through the analysis of each layer
of factors, and then the overall evaluation is carried
out (Suh, 2004; Li, 2005).
Post Occupancy Evaluation Conduct a questionnaire survey on the public
(POE) landscape that has been utilized for various users,
and examine the users’ visual aesthetic evaluation
of the environmental quality of the built landscape (
Zhu, 2003).
Psycho-Physiological The visual quality of the landscape evaluated by
Indicator (PPI) measuring the physical and psychological indexes
of the experiencer when viewing the photos (Zhang
and Pan, 2011; Lausch et al., 2015).
Importance-Performance A two-dimensional four-quadrant IPA grid
Analysis (IPA) constructed to draw the quality evaluation through
comparative analysis of the two dimensions (Min
et al., 2016).
Free Choice Profiling (FCP) The evaluators asked to observe more than two
groups of landscapes and generate descriptive
terms, then simulated to quantify the perceived
landscape quality visually. Multivariate statistical
analysis of the data conducted to find aesthetic
consensus among landscapes (Harding et al., 2017).
Landscape Assessment The integrity, naturalness, authenticity, beauty, and
Protocol (LAP) other landscape features scored by well-trained
professional evaluators, and use the most
straightforward and simple way to perform multiple
unweighted scores to identify the favorable or
unfavorable conditions that affect the visual quality
of the landscape (Vlami et al., 2019).
Village Land Use Plan (VLUP) In rural landscape planning and design, obtain local
actual land use and spatial information from
stakeholders, and then use PGIS (participatory GIS)
to improve the visual quality of landscape planning
(Eilola, 2019).
Landscape Color Quantitative analysis of the relationship between
Quantification (LCQ) color and landscape decorative value from the
perspectives of color composition and color spatial
pattern was done in accordance with the features of
human vision. (Zhang et al., 2020; Qin et al., 2020).
Contemplative Landscape Scored the street views and paths with landscape
Model (CLM) characteristics by experts, and fed the results into
QGIS (Quantum GIS) for visualization. Calculated
the consistency of Cohen’s Kappa statistics between
expert scores to determine the street most capable
of triggering meditation (Yanru et al., 2020).
in Ui with respect to V denotes asB = (b1 , b2 , ⋯, bn ), where element bi
∑
represents the weight of factor i and satisfies ni=1 bi = 1.
Step 2: Determine the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation matrix.
For the indicatorUi , the membership of each review is a fuzzy subset
on V, and the evaluation of the indicator Ui is recorded asRi =
[ri1 , ri2 , ⋯, rim ]. Hence, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation matrix of
each indicator is a fuzzy relation matrix from U to V, which can be
written as.
⎡ ⎤
r11 r12 ⋯ r1m
⎢ r21 r22 ⋯ r2m ⎥
R=⎢ ⎥ (2)
⎣ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦
rn1 rn2 ⋯ rnm
Step 3: Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation.
Transformed the fuzzy set B on U into the fuzzy set C on V by the
( )
fuzzy relationship matrixR = rij n×m , that.
TR : F(U)→F(V) (3)
N. Kang and C. Liu Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174

Table 2 Note: E*P = mixed expert-based (E) and public-based (P) method; E + P =
Application of the evaluation methods. expert-based (E) or public-based (P) is workable; F*I = mixed field (F) and in­
door(I) evaluation method; F + I = field or indoor evaluation is workable.
Methods Application Scope E/P F/I Feature

SBE All landscapes P I Many photo samples can be

evaluated at one time, but the C = B⋅R = (c1 , c2 , ⋯, cm ) (4)
scores of different sites are not
comparable Here, C is the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation set on the review set
LCJ Relatively small-scale P I Photo samples can be V, and ci is the membership degree of the evaluation level vi to the fuzzy
landscape compared and referenced evaluation set C obtained from the comprehensive evaluation. Accord­
with each other
ing to the principle of maximum membership, the rating level vi corre­
CIM landscape planning E*P F The combination of comment
and design +I and analysis has good sponding to the largest ci in the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation set C is
reliability, but limited by the the result of the comprehensive evaluation.
expression ability of reviewers The descriptive landscape index method, public preference method,
VRM natural landscape E F*I Relatively authoritative
and overall quantitative method are frequently used to categorize
evaluation of natural scenic
spots landscape evaluation methods after years of research. Among these,
LRM Agriculture and E F*I practical for evaluation in descriptive landscape index methods are the most essential way of
Forestry Landscape rural areas with sensitive land landscape resource examination, including qualitative and quantitative
use description, and primarily focus on the combination of landscape ele­
VIA Municipal landscape E F*I Evaluate the impact of
ments (Bacon, 1979; Schauman and Adams, 1979; Yeomans, 1986).
municipal works on the visual
effect of landscape However, its deficiency is the absence of scientific evaluation conclu­
SQ All landscapes P F Collecting public comments is sions as a result of arbitrary component determination and rating by
+I relatively objective, and not specialists. The public preference methods originate from the masses,
limited by venue and time
and the questionnaire or oral survey method, which are closer to ordi­
SD All landscapes P F Psychometric quantification is
+I relatively accurate due to the
nary people’s landscape aesthetic aspirations (Daniel et al.,1977; Hull
interval provided by paired and Buhyoff, 1981). Likewise, since people’s psychology is the most
adjectives uncertain, the findings are sometimes arbitrary, and the questionnaire is
SBTD Landscape change E F*I Added longitudinal time-consuming and labor-intensive during collection of social group
prediction comparison at different times
opinions. In the third approach, subjective and objective methodologies
FM All landscapes P I Evaluate the fuzziness or
uncertainty of influencing are combined to demonstrate the statistical relationship between land­
factors scape components and observers’ aesthetic preference by multiple
Kuang- All landscapes P F The qualitative description of regression analysis, making it more authentic (Hull and Buhyoff, 1986;
Ao +I the space experience is in line
Chen, 1997; Buhyoff and Miller, 1998; Palmer and Hoffman, 2001;
with the aesthetic habits of
Chinese gardens
Huang et al., 2002; Min et al., 2016; Harding et al., 2017; Eilola et al.,
FG landscape planning E+ I Introduce fractal aesthetics 2019; Yanru et al., 2020; Meitner, 2004; Li, 2005; Ban et al, 2008;
and design P and open new ways. Lausch et al., 2015; Dupont et al., 2017; Qin et al., 2020). Nonetheless,
SM architectural P I Accurate positioning analysis this strategy must make predictions about landscape preferences, which
landscape with retouching software
are subject to some ambiguity.
EVA All landscapes E F*I Well considered and relatively
authoritative, but weight In terms of application scope, the landscape index method has the
calculation needs to be further largest coverage. Compared with the landscape index method, the
optimized public preference method has a smaller scope of application. It is more
DM All landscapes E F The evaluations were
suitable for examining landscapes adjacent to inhabitants’ homes, such
+I relatively effective and
focused.
as parks, while the overall quantification method is more appropriate for
AHP All landscapes E+ F High reliability of qualitative the prediction and analysis of unbuilt landscapes.
P +I and quantitative combination Landscape visual quality assessment methodologies and items, in
POE Existing public P F The evaluation is more general, have distinct properties. If we consider the aesthetic process of
landscape +I convincing considering the
the landscape visual environment to be a complete system, we will
interaction between the user
and the environment discover that different schools of thought and research methodologies
PPI All landscapes P I Evaluation data is reliable and are not incompatible, but rather complimentary. The expert paradigm,
objective based on instrument for instance, ignores the subjective role of people while emphasizing the
test objective characteristics of the landscape visual environment itself,
IPA Public landscape P F Expressed in a quadrant grid,
+I intuitive and vivid.
whereas the empirical paradigm, on the contrary, stresses the function of
FCP Comparison of the E*P F The results are more humans and ignores the study of the landscape visual environment itself.
beauty of the same +I comprehensive and objective
type of landscape by using multivariate
statistical analysis
3.2. Technical support for evaluation methods
LAP A degraded landscape E F Expert on-site evaluation has
with reduced high credibility; Simple and Traditional media such as photos and slides have been extensively
aesthetic quality direct multiple evaluations employed as a fundamental tool for visual assessment research in the
save time
past decades (Palmer and Hoffman, 2001; Meitner,2004). Studies have
VLUP Rural landscape P F*I Strong pertinence and focus
planning and design on solving practical problems shown that traditional techniques, on the other hand, struggle to over­
LCQ Evaluation of the P I Subjective and objective come the space–time constraints of landscape appraisal. Specifically, the
Color Aesthetic evaluations combined to trustworthiness of the findings is questioned owing to the challenge of
Quality of Landscape evaluate the most important traditional techniques in portraying multidimensional landscapes and
color elements that affect
vision.
the subjectivity of landscape analysis, and the growth of landscape
CLM High-density urban E F*I Strong pertinence and focus assessment research is therefore limited (Tveit et al., 2006; Dramstad
landscape on solving practical problems et al., 2006). Meanwhile, the continuous maturity of new technologies,
such as high-resolution remote sensing (RS), geographic information

6
N. Kang and C. Liu Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174

Fig. 6. Hierarchical structure of AHP (Li, 2005).

converted into computer numbers, therefore subjective evaluation

Table 3
methods using photographs remain essential (Hernandez et al., 2004;
Pair-wise comparison scale.
Garre et al., 2009).
Scoring verbal scale Explanation In addition, the 3D imaging technology of VR and AR allows users to
1 Equal importance of both Two elements contribute equally fully immerse themselves in the simulated virtual field for a better
elements comprehensive experience and evaluation. Particularly, 3D visualiza­
3 Moderate importance of one Experience and judgment favor one tion technology plays a distinctive role in the selection of landscape
element over another element over another
5 Strong importance of one An element is strongly favored
quality planning schemes. For example, in practice, 3D technology is
element over another first used to simulate different design schemes, and then evaluation
7 Very strong importance of one An element is strongly very based on experts and the general public are performed to select the right
element over another dominant one as a planning reference (Pullar and Tidey, 2001; Wissen et al.,
9 Extreme importance of one An element is favored by at least an
2008). According to the findings, immersive, interactive, and multi­
element over another order of magnitude
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values Used to compromise between two sensory virtual reality technology is rapidly providing a new dimension
judgments to landscape quality assessment research. It is expected to become an
essential tool for landscape appraisal in the future.
The tools and techniques that have been tested in practice and
system (GIS), and three-dimensional imaging technology(3D) has made proven to be effective summarized in Table 4.
evaluation more accurate and objective, solved the space–time scale
problem of landscape quality evaluation, and made complex analysis
based on regional data possible (Hernandez et al., 2004). 3.3. Practice of landscape visual evaluation methods
At present, the GIS and RS are regarded as powerful tools to evaluate
the visual quality of the landscape, and their advantages in simulating In practice, methodologies mentioned above for complete assess­
the dynamic changes of the landscape have become increasingly ment of landscape visual quality are classified into three categories
prominent. To begin, geographical data for the whole study region, (Kalivoda et al., 2014): One kind of objective technique (primary formal
including diverse natural and human variables such as terrain, vegeta­ aesthetic model and landscape ecological model) focus on the substan­
tion, infrastructure, and land use, is collected using a field survey, map, tive level, such as examining and researching the biophysical aspects of
and aerial picture. On this premise, an acceptable GIS tool is chosen to the landscape visual environment. The second class of approaches
integrate the whole regional system, and then a visibility study of concentrate on the psychological level, i.e., on the person’s subjective
various landscapes is performed. Furthermore, several GIS-based tech­ feeling, which consist of psychological model, cognitive model, and
nologies and models have been developed to increase the realism of experiential model. The third category is synthesis, which consists
dynamic landscape modeling. mostly of psychophysical models.
The advantage of using GIS is that it allows for relatively macro­ The assessment of landscape visual quality is challenging since it
scopic quantitative analysis through mapping. Still, the amount of data involves many variables such as nature, society, psychology, environ­
necessary is enormous, and the accuracy of the data will have a sub­ ment, ecology, technology, and crowd characteristics. Because the ob­
stantial influence on the results when creating a GIS database. There­ jects of landscape assessment varied greatly, covering both
fore, the data should be selected correctly based on the real comprehensive landscape visual quality evaluation and landscape visual
circumstances, and the target landscape should be approximated or quality influence evaluation, research based solely on the researcher’s
assessed as precisely as feasible. However, not all criteria can be subjective assumptions will not meet the goal. The selection of evalua­
tion methods need follow systematic procedures and scientific

7
N. Kang and C. Liu
Table 4
Tools and techniques for evaluating landscape visual quality.
Tools / techniques Application Descriptions
stage
Geographic Information I Introduce GIS spatial analysis
System (GIS) technology and the landscape
pattern index into the evaluation of
landscape visual quality to improve
the scientific and rigorous
assessment (Hadrian et al., 1988).
Remote Sensing (RS) I Use aerial or satellite imagery to
assess the visual quality of the
landscape (Crawford, 1994).
Digital Elevation Model I The digital representation and
(DEM) modeling of terrain surface
morphology, slope, aspect, slope
change rate, and other parameters
improve the accuracy of landscape
visual quality rating. (Ambros and
Nunes, 1996).
Perception and Evaluation II The calculation of landscape
Parameters (PEP) aesthetic parameters, such as
functional maintenance, naturalness,
openness, time, season, and
environment color, is helpful to
evaluate landscape quality
comprehensively (Coeterier, 1996).
Street View (SV) II Use street view maps and images to
conduct quantitative analysis of
objective indicators to improve the
accuracy of evaluation (Oh, 1998).
Eye Tracking (ET) II The aesthetic perception of
reviewers obtained by tracking the
movement characteristics of human
eyes, such as fixation, scanning and
following (Toyokawa and Ichihara,
1999).
Factor Analysis (FA) III A statistical technique to find hidden
representative factors among many
variables that affect the quality of
the landscape (Kim et al., 1999).
Cellular Automata (CA) I CA simulates the temporal and
spatial dynamics of complex
landscape systems based on GIS data
to predict the development and
utilization prospects of landscape
resources, filling the gap left by
traditional models that consider the
system’s time and space
characteristics in isolation. (Zeng
et al., 2000).
Grey Cluster Analysis I Through the whitening of the grey
(GCA) system, the original appearance and
change rule of the system is
presented. Then, the grey clustering
analysis used to classify the scenic
spots and assist the determination of
the ornamental grade of scenic spots
(Feng et al., 2000).
Visibility Model (VM) II Analyze and model the visibility of
each area of the city with the help of
GIS technology, and evaluate the
contribution of each area to the
aesthetic perception of the landscape
through the visibility model (Otero
et al., 2009).
Visitor-Employed I Analyze their visual preferences by
Photography (VEP) recording the shooting behavior and
content of the tourists in landscape
visual quality assessment (Garrod,
2009).
GPS Visitor Tracking I Use the spatial location information
(GVT) of tourists to explore their behavior
characteristics and analyze their
visual preferences to evaluate the
landscape visual quality (Beeco
et al., 2014).
8
Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174
Table 4 (continued )
Tools / techniques Application Descriptions
stage
Hyperspectral and Light II The classification and depth images
Detection and Ranging of landscape locations obtained from
(H&LiDAR) the combined hyperspectral and
lidar data, and surface features such
as land cover attributes and
openness quantified to evaluate the
relationship between surface
features and human preferences for
landscapes (Yokoya et al., 2014).
Landscape Clutter Index II Describe the visual disordered
(LCI) degree of the landscape from three
criteria: striking landscape elements,
diversity of land use and landscape
openness (Alfred and Jan, 2014).
Landscape Sensitivity II Describe the visual sensitivity of the
Index (LSI) landscape from three criteria:
visibility, number of users and
landscape attraction (Store et al.,
2015).
Multi-Criteria Evaluation II The multi-objective method is
(MCE) employed to establish the evaluation
system when using the AHP
evaluation method (Haara et al.,
2017).
Index of Landscape II Three variables of land type, shape,
Disharmony (ILDH) and color were used to measure the
degree of different elements
affecting landscape harmony (
Barbara, 2016).
Photo-Elicitation I Display landscape photos to trigger
Interview (PEI) memory and association of
interviewers, and to calculate their
views on landscape beauty (Shao and
Liu, 2016).
Virtual Reality Panorama I Watch the panoramic view of the
Technology (VR) landscape through VR equipment,
and perceive the three-dimensional
natural environment and space
experience of the site to improve the
accuracy of evaluation (Sun et al.,
2016).
Artificial Neural Network III From the perspective of artificial
(ANN) intelligence, the human brain neuron
network is abstracted and modeled
in aesthetic quality prediction of
unbuilt landscape (Jahani and Fazel,
2016; Ostad-Ali-Askari and Shayan,
2021; Ostad-Ali-Askari et al., 2017).
Support Vector Machine III Use the neural network to predict the
(SVM) aesthetic quality of landscape by
ranking the landscape factors that
affect the perception of aesthetic
quality (Jahani et al., 2020).
Note. “I”= first stage (data collection), “II” = second stage (expert/public based
evaluation)；“III” = third stage (data analysis).
principles. It demands both an objective research process (predictive
analysis) and a subjective evaluation process (impact assessment).
As expected, the research trend of landscape visual quality evalua­
tion recently is interdisciplinary crossover, multi-paradigms combined
with systematic perspectives and methods, such as the Balanced
Incomplete Block Design-LCJ (BIB-LCJ) method (Yu, 1988; Chen and
Wang, 2020), GIS-RS-GPS-AHP (3S-AHP)method (Cao et al., 2006;
Wang and Peng, 2011), AHP-LCJ method (Chen et al., 2009), AHP-SBE-
GIS (ASG) method(Li, 2014), Fuzzy-AHP (F-AHP) method (Salehnasab
et al., 2016), Fuzzy Delphi Method (F-DM) (Saffari et al., 2019), AHP-
Entropy Method (AHP-EM) (Wu and Luan, 2019).
In recent years, landscape assessment practice has evolved toward
refinement and digitization. The landscape is no longer evaluated as a
whole, but rather as many landscape components and features. The
landscape map is then created using GIS, RS, and other technological
N. Kang and C. Liu Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174

tools. Meanwhile, the human sense landscape is often split and charac­
terized with data, eventually generating an overall landscape resource
map of a region. As an example, Wagtendonk and Vermaat (2014a,b))
developed an empirical method based on a low-resolution GIS to
quantify perceived landscape cluttering of Jsseldelta (Figs. 7–9). It
demonstrated that expert-based assessment of landscape cluttering can
be approximated with an objective map-based algorithm.
In terms of scale, landscape evaluation is expanding to full-scale
coverage, no longer limited to a specific landscape, such as a park,
campus, or community, but to urban, regional, and even national
landscape assessment development. Furthermore, the objects of land­
scape appraisal practice are becoming increasingly diverse and there
have been fruitful evaluation practices carried out in the rural landscape
(Lokocz et al., 2011; Sowinska et al., 2019; Sottini et al., 2019), coastal
landscape (Salameh, 2001; Pereira et al., 2019; Yi et al., 2021), road
landscape (Akbar et al., 2003; Chen and Li, 2021; Zheng et al., 2022),
forest landscape (Meitner et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2019; Jahani and
Rayegani, 2020) and park landscape (del Castillo et al., 2015; Gungor
and Polat, 2018; Du et al., 2020). Fig.8. Scenario outcomes for the 72 sample1 km2 squares of the clutter­
ing indicator.

3.4. Proposal for landscape visual quality evaluation

As mentioned earlier, we discussed the methodologies, tools, and

practice of landscape evaluation. For each of those in our review, there is
not only one evaluation indicator, but a set or series. In practice, how­
ever, the issue is extremely complicated when considering each of the
disciplines. Because diverse indicators are used for various objectives
and application kinds as well as to cater the many different problem-
related characteristics. Therefore, visual quality evaluation is easy
affected by a variety of variables such as landscape resource environ­
ment, professional awareness and engagement, individual aesthetic, and
assessment criteria, among others. It is also challenging to develop a
standard evaluation model in practice since visual quality assessment
may be employed as a research topic in various professional disciplines.
In the context of landscape assessment, Fig. 10 sets out something of
a research guideline in this respect. An understanding of such relation­
Fig. 9. Scenario outcomes of cluttering broken down across landscape types.
ships and practical advice for strategies’ appropriate selection and
application is clearly fundamental to further progress in this general
area. When making a selection and a recommendation, we will consider
the primary purpose of this research, namely the application of

Fig. 7. Landscape cluttering per 100 × 100 m grid cell on a score from 0 to 80 (quantile classification) in the Netherlands (left image) and in an enlarged area
(IJsseldelta, right image) in the year 2000.

9
N. Kang and C. Liu
Fig. 10. Recommendations on landscape quality evaluation framework.
landscape assessment principles and the two scales of reference chosen
(objects and disciplines).
In the structured evaluation system, terms like mountains, polar re­
gions, deserts, swamps, tundra, and tropical rainforests are examples of
natural landscapes. Agricultural landscape refers to the agriculture,
forestry, animal husbandry and fishery, etc. The rural landscape in­
cludes rural communities or activity areas with buildings or structures
such as farms and villages. Urban landscape refers to the landscape with
high building density, which is completely created by human activities,
including industrial and commercial system, transportation system and
greening system (Naveh and Lieberman, 2013).
4. Conclusions and outlook
By way of conclusion, this review concentrates on approaches and
practical excise of landscape visual quality evaluation. We aim to
explore the methodologies, technologies, and tools of landscape evalu­
ation research in a systematic and comprehensive way. Especially, an
overview of the methodologies used, as well as their benefits and
drawbacks, is examined. Literature review of landscape evaluation
demonstrates that, to acquire objective results, landscape quality eval­
uation study should not rely just on expert opinions, but also consider
the physical, biological, and social aspects of users and the environment.
In this context, continuously renewed and revised analysis studies
focusing on cross-field complementarity provide a basis for developing
the landscape assessment system. The paper contributes to academic
research by giving important insights into raise awareness of landscape
evaluation methods and techniques and providing practical advice for
their appropriate selection and application, in addition to encouraging
discourse the professional community about this topic. Hence, further
research should take the current findings into account.
The current development trend of landscape visual quality evalua­
tion is multi-disciplinary crossover with the combination of diverse
paradigms and models. Previously, the validity and reliability of the
findings was questioned due to the difficulties of expressing multi-
dimensional landscape through pictures and the subjectivity of land­
scape analysis, and the development of visual landscape research was
constrained. Current literature survey shows that the advancement of
techniques and technology is increasingly overcoming this gap. Though
there haven’t been many improvements in quality assessment, effect
assessment, or preference research from a methodology standpoint, the
research strategies launched on the integration of the user and the
landscape from the perspectives of subject and object enhance the ob­
jectivity of the analysis results.
Specialists from numerous disciplines have worked with the evalu­
ation and analysis of the various landscape elements. In the literature
under review, there are numerous instances of studies carried out by
experts in either the landscape or the estimative disciplines. In both
cases, the studies are constrained by an inadequately interdisciplinary
and reductive approach, and the results are to some extent unsatisfac­
tory when viewed from the perspective of the individual disciplines.
Therefore, studying the landscape for the goal of making an evaluation
10
Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174
using indicators requires a significant amount of multidisciplinary work
and mutual contamination.
Technically, the use of GIS and 3D technology significantly expand
the space–time scale of quality assessment and influence evaluation,
enhances evaluation accuracy, and increases the application value of
these two types of research in landscape planning. Although conven­
tional media such as photographs have limitations, they are nonetheless
commonly employed in the process of public investigation due to
simplicity. Furthermore, network technology advancements have less­
ened the temporal and spatial constraints of group involvement, and
augmented reality technologies have contributed new capacity to
enhance the reality of environment.
With the fast advancement of computer technology, quantitative
evaluation would be an excellent method for landscape visual environ­
ment evaluation. The creation of the landscape visual environment, on
the other hand, is a dynamic process, and the quantitative assessment
model has a one-sidedness that should be organically combined with
non-quantitative methodologies. The link between the “empirical rela­
tion system” and the “numerical relation system” is the key to the
integration of quantitative and non-quantitative approaches, and the
development of the connection mode may be anticipated to obtain a full
assessment conclusion.
While in the studies on landscape preferences, with the use of more
new technologies, evaluations tend to adopt new methods such as
behavior tracking, location, and neural simulation for people through
instruments rather than single scoring, questionnaire, and interview,
thus lessening the influence of subjective factors and making the eval­
uation results more objective. Furthermore, the application of evalua­
tion techniques appears to take multiple approaches to evaluating some
same landscape, or just the same method to evaluating several land­
scapes of a kind. Alternatively, employ various approaches to assess
various sorts of landscapes, and then undertake associated regression
analysis to discover the rules and provide ideas for new evaluation
methods.
Although research on the assessment of landscape perception
(Generally both expert assessments and general public judgements) has
been conducted for a long time, there are few empirical studies on vis­
itors’ landscape perception and preference, and even fewer studies on
the visualization of the landscape via representative options. In addition
to visual, additional sensory components are also involved in perception
of a landscape. Indeed, the auditory and olfactory senses have a big
influence on people’s perceptions, which may explain why experts’
judgements are often different from that of the general public. However,
there is no widely used and uniform research method at present. We now
have ways to measure auditory contribution thanks to increasing
attention being paid to the soundscape, but the criteria are not well
established enough for landscapes.
Despite the fact that the study emphasis has evolved from environ­
mental management to ecological management, the research goal of
landscape visual quality assessment remains to investigate the influence
of landscape features and characteristics on landscape visual quality.
The significance of ecological environment issues has increased the
N. Kang and C. Liu
urgency of visual landscape study, which should provide greater priority
in the future to aesthetics based on ecological environment value.
Yet virtually the growing temporal and geographical scale have brought
new challenges to the landscape visual environment evaluation at this
junction. It’s encouraging to see that the development of GIS technology
has reduced the space–time constraints of group involvement. Never­
theless, it remains unclear which landscape elements are most relevant
to ecosystem management, and it is also a challenge to display these
aspects to viewers in order to capture effective indicators. As the search
for more sustainable forms of landscape evaluation illustrates, there is a
pressing need for further study into the link between landscape element
and ecosystem management.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ning Kang: Methodology, Data curation, Software, Writing – review
& editing. Chunqing Liu: Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project
administration, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grand No. 31660231), and the Humanities and Social Science
Fund project of Hubei Education Department, China (Grand No.
20Q149), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grand
No. 51968026). We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of
Ecological Indicators for helpful comments and Dr. Renqiang Jiao of
Hubei Polytechnic University for his assistance on the revised manuscript.
References
Akbar, K.F., Hale, W.H.G., Headley, A.D., 2003. Assessment of scenic beauty of the
roadside vegetation in north England. Landscape Urban Plann. 2003 (959), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00185-8.
Alfred J. Wagtendonk, Jan E. Vermaat., 2014. Visual perception of cluttering in
landscapes: Developing a low-resolution GIS-evaluation method. Landscape and
Urban Planning,2014,124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.006.
Ambrós, S., Nunes, J., 1996. Definition of landscape morphological units from digital
elevation models. Proceedings of the second joint European conference & exhibition on
Geographical information (Vol. 1): from research to application through cooperation:
from research to application through cooperation. 1996: 488-492. https://dl.acm.org/
doi/abs/10.5555/240218.240296.
Appleton, J., 1975. Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr.
1975, 120–123. https://doi.org/10.2307/621625.
Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J.F., Cañas-Madueño, J.A., Ruiz-Aviles, P., 2004. Assessing
the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 69 (1), 115–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029.
Arthur, L.M., 1977. Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical
tests. For. Sci. 23 (2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/23.2.151.
Asur, F., 2019. An evaluation of visual landscape quality of coastal settlements: A case
study of coastal areas in the Van Lake Basin (Turkey). Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 17
(2), 1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1702_18491864.
Bacon, W.R., 1979. The visual management system of forest service. Proceedings of Our
National Landscape; USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW; USDA:
Washington, DC, USA, 1979. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/27639.
Ban, Y.U., Baek, J.I., Kim, M.A., et al., 2008. Classifying rural landscape types and
developing rural landscape evaluation indicators using expert Delphi survey method.
Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning 14 (3), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.7851/
ksrp.2014.20.4.025.
Barbara, S.S., 2016. Index of Landscape Disharmony (ILDH) as a new tool combining the
aesthetic and ecological approach to landscape assessment. Ecol. Ind. 2016, 70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.038.
11
Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174
Beeco, J.A., Hallo, J.C., Brownlee, M.T.J., 2014. GPS Visitor Tracking and Recreation
Suitability Mapping: Tools for understanding and managing visitor use. Landscape
Urban Plann. 2014 (127), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2014.04.002.
Binyi, Liu, Rong, Fan, 2014. Experiment and analysis of visual attraction mechanism of
landscape space. Chinese Landscape Architecture 30 (09), 33–36.
Boster, R.S., 1971. A critical appraisal of the environmental movement. J. Forest. 69 (1),
12–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1971.tb03524.x.
Buhyoff, G.J., 1978. Landscape architect’s interpretations of people’s landscape
preference. J. Environ. Manage. 6, 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207237808737366.
Buhyoff, G.J., Miller. P.A., 1998. Context reliability and internal validity of an expert
system to assess landscape visual values. AI applications (USA), 1998.
Buhyoff, G.J., Wellman, J.D., Daniel, T.C., 1982. Predicting scenic quality for mountain
pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science 28
(4), 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/28.4.827.
Buhyoff, G.J., 1994. An AI methodology for landscape visual assessments. AI Appl. 8 (1),
1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8655(94)90050-7.
Bulut, Z., Yilmaz, H., 2008. Determination of landscape beauties through visual quality
assessment method: a case study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey). Environ. Monit.
Assess. 141 (1), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9882-0.
Burrough P., 1994. Principles of geographical information systems for land resources
assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1994. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10106048609354060.
Burton, L.R., 1968. Forest landscape description and inventories; a basis for land
planning and design. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture. 1968. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201
300717106.
Calvin, J.S., Dearinger, J.A., Curtin, M.E., 1972. An attempt at assessing preferences for
natural landscape. Environment and Behavior 4 (4), 447.
Chen Yanguang., 1997. On fractal and tourist landscape. Human geography,1997,12(1):
62-66.
Chen, C., 2018. CiteSpace. Available online: https://sourceforge.net/projects/citespace/.
Jun, Cao, Zhang, Yi-zhuo, Yu, Hui-ling, 2006. 3S-based assessment system of highway
ecological landscape. Chinese Journal of Ecology 05, 587–590.
Chen, Chuwen, Bao, Qinxing, Feng, Juhao, 2009. Evaluation on Forest Park Landscape
Resources Based on AHP-LCJ. Forest Resources Management 2009 (05), 99–104.
Chen, S., Lei, J., 2021. Urban arterial road landscape evaluation concerning dynamic
variation of road service quality impact factors. Arabian J. Geosci. 14 (13), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-07519-z.
Chen, Guodong, Wang, Hao, 2020. Evaluation for Ecological Environment Quality in
Wetland Park Based on BIB-LCJ Model. Journal of Shandong Agricultural University
(Natural Science) 51 (1), 64–68.
Coeterier, J.F., 1996. Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch
landscape. Landscape Urban Plann. 34 (1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-
2046(95)00204-9.
Craik, K.H., 1975. Individual variations in landscape description. Hutchinson and Ross,
Stroudsburg (Pennsylvania), Dowden.
Crawford, D., 1994. Using remotely sensed data in landscape visual quality assessment.
Landscape Urban Plann. 30 (1–2), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)
90068-X.
Daniel, T.C., Vining, J., 1983. Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Landscape
Quality. Behavior and the Natural Environment. 1983, 39–84. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_3.
Daniel, T.C., 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, 1976. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/20911.
Daniel, T.C., et al., 1977. Mapping the scenic beauty of forests landscapes. Leisure
Sciences 1 (1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490407709512869.
del Castillo, E.M., García-Martin, A., Aladrén, L.A.L., et al., 2015. Evaluation of forest
cover change using remote sensing techniques and landscape metrics in Moncayo
Natural Park (Spain). Appl. Geogr. 2015 (62), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeog.2015.05.002.
Dramstad, W.E., Tveit, M.S., Fjellstad, W.J., et al., 2006. Relationships between visual
landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape
Urban Plann. 78 (4), 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006.
Du, A., Xu, W., Xiao, Y., et al., 2020. Evaluation of prioritized natural landscape
conservation areas for national park planning in China. Sustainability 12 (5), 1840.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051840.
Dupont, L., Ooms, K., Antrop, M., et al., 2017. Testing the validity of a saliency-based
method for visual assessment of constructions in the landscape. Landscape Urban
Plann. 2017 (167), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.07.005.
Echelberger, H.E., 1979. The semantic differential in landscape research. In: Elsner, Gary
H., and Richard C. Smardon, technical coordinators. 1979. Proceedings of our
national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management
of the visual resource [Incline Village, Nev., April 23-25, 1979]. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSW-GTR-35. Berkeley, CA. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Forest
Service, US Department of Agriculture: p. 524-531. 1979, 35.
Eilola, S., Käyhkö, N., Ferdinands, A., et al., 2019. A bird’s eye view of my
village–Developing participatory geospatial methodology for local level land use
planning in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Landscape Urban Plann. 2019
(190), 103596 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103596.
Feimet, N.R., 1981. Evaluating the effectiveness of observer—based visual resources and
impact assessment methods. Landscape Res. 1981 (6), 12–16. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01426398108705963.
N. Kang and C. Liu
Feng, Lihua, Wang, Jiyi, Zhang, Mingzhuo, 2000. Grey clustering assessment of
environmental quality. Environmental Protection Science 26 (4), 37–39.
Fox, E.J., 1989. A phenomenological investigation of environmental gestalts: an intuitive
reading in Harlan County, KY. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
p. 1989.
Garré, S., Meeus, S., Gulinck, H., 2009. The dual role of roads in the visual landscape: A
case-study in the area around Mechelen (Belgium). Landscape Urban Plann. 92 (2),
125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.04.001.
Garrod, B., 2009. Understanding the relationship between tourism destination imagery
and tourist photography. Ournal of Travel Re-search 2009 (3), 346–358. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0047287508322785.
Gungor, S., Polat, A.T., 2018. Relationship between visual quality and landscape
characteristics in urban parks. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 19 (2), 939–948.
Haara, A., Store, R., Leskinen, P., 2017. Analyzing uncertainties and estimating priorities
of landscape sensitivity based on expert opinions. Landscape Urban Plann. 2017
(163), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.002.
Hadrian, D.R., Bishop, I.D., 1988. Mitcheltree. Automated mapping of visual impacts in
utility corridors. Landscape Urban Plann. 16 (3), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0169-2046(88)90073-4.
Harding, S.P., Burch, S.E., Wemelsfelder, F., 2017. The assessment of landscape
expressivity: a free choice profiling approach. PLoS ONE 12 (1), e0169507. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169507.
Hernández, J., Garcı́a, L., Ayuga, F., 2004. Assessment of the visual impact made on the
landscape by new buildings: a methodology for site selection. Landscape Urban
Plann. 68 (1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00116-6.
Herzog, T.R., 1984. A cognitive analysis of preference for field-and-forest environments.
Landscape Res. 9 (1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426398408706092.
Heywood, J.L., Funk, K.A., 1983. Developing Semantic Differential Scales for Use in
Natural Landscape Perception Studies //Ohio Journal of Science. 1500 W 3rd Ave
Suite 223, Columbus, Oh 43212-2817: Ohio Acad Science, 1983, 83(2): 66-66.
Huang, Guoping, Ma, Ting, Wang, Nian, 2002. Landscape Assessment of Urban River
System with Fuzzy Mathematics Approach. Chinese Landscape Architecture 2002
(03), 21–23.
Hull IV, R.B., 1986. Sensitivity of scenic beauty assessments. Landscape Urban Plann.
1986 (13), 319–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(86)90044-7.
Hull IV, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., 1981. On the law of comparative judgment: Scaling with
intransitive observers and multidimensional stimuli. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 41 (4),
1083–1089. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100417.
Hull IV, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., 1986. The scenic beauty temporal distribution method: an
attempt to make scenic beauty assessments compatible with forest planning efforts.
Forest Science 32 (2), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/32.2.271.
Iverson, W.D., Sheppard, S.R.J., Strain, R.A., 1993. Managing regional scenic quality in
the Lake Tahoe Basin. Landscape Journal 12 (1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.3368/
lj.12.1.23.
Jahani, A., Fazel, A.M., 2016. Aesthetic quality modeling of landscape in urban green
space using artificial neural network. Journal of Natural Environment, 69(4): 951-963.
10.22059/JNE.2017.127667.949.
Jahani, A., Rayegani, B., 2020. Forest landscape visual quality evaluation using artificial
intelligence techniques as a decision support system. Stoch. Env. Res. Risk Assess. 34
(10), 1473–1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-020-01832-x.
Jahani, A., Goshtasb, H., Saffariha, M., 2020. Tourism impact assessment modeling of
vegetation density for protected areas using data mining techniques. Land Degrad.
Dev. 31 (12), 1502–1519. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3549.
Javadinejad, S., Ostad-Ali-Askari, K., Jafary, F., 2019. Using simulation model to
determine the regulation and to optimize the quantity of chlorine injection in water
distribution networks. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 5, 1015–1023. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40808-019-00587-x.
Kalivoda, O., Vojar, J., Skřivanová, Z., Zahradník, D., 2014. Consensus in landscape
preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and
respondents’ characteristics. J. Environ. Manage. 137, 36–44. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.009.
Kaplan, S., 1979. Concerning the power of content identifying methodologies [R]. 1979.
https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/150736.
Kaplan, S., 1988. Where cognition and affect meet: A theoretical analysis of preference.
EDRA: Environmental Design Research Association, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1017/
cbo9780511571213.007.
Kellomäki, S., Savolainen, R., 1984. The scenic value of the forest landscape as assessed
in the field and the laboratory. Landscape planning 11 (2), 97–107. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0304-3924(84)90033-9.
Kim, S.K., Cho, W.H., Im, S.B., 1999. Landscape evaluation of rural stream based on the
factor analysis of visual preference. Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning 5
(1), 35–44.
Lausch, A., Blaschke, T., Haase, D., 2015. Understanding and quantifying landscape
structure – A review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape
metrics. Ecol. Model. 2015, 295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.018.
Li, Kunlun, 2005. Using analytic hierarchy process in urban road landscape evaluation.
Journal of Wuhan University (Engineering Edition) 2005 (01), 143–152.
Li, Y., 2014. Research on quality evaluation of landscape vision by ASG Synthesis
method. Northeast Forestry University.
Li, Rui-xuan, Wang, Xiao-jun, Li, Bin-cheng, 2002. A Study on the Development and
Management of Regional Landscape Visual Resource. Chinese Landscape
Architecture 2002 (03), 51–53.
Lifton, N.A., Chase, C.G., 1991. Tectonic, climatic and lithologic influences on landscape
fractal dimension and hypsometry: implications for landscape evolution in the San
Gabriel Mountains. California. Geomorphology 5 (1–2), 77–114. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0169-555X(92)90059-W.
12
Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174
Liu, B.Y., 1988. Landscape planning and design assisted by computer aerial survey for
scenic scenery. New Architecture 1988 (03), 53–63.
Liu, Y., Hu, M., Zhao, B., 2019. Audio-visual interactive evaluation of the forest
landscape based on eye-tracking experiments. Urban For. Urban Greening 2019 (46),
126476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126476.
Lokocz, E., Ryan, R.L., Sadler, A.J., 2011. Motivations for land protection and
stewardship: Exploring place attachment and rural landscape character in
Massachusetts. Landscape Urban Plann. 99 (2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2010.08.015.
Martínez-Harms, M.J., Balvanera, P., 2012. Methods for mapping ecosystem service
supply: a review. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services &
Management 8 (1–2), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.663792.
McDonald, C.D., 1983. Managing River environments for the participation motives of
stream floaters. J. Environ. Manage. 16 (4), 369–377.
Meitner, M., Gandy, R., Nelson, J., 2006. Application of texture mapping to generate and
communicate the visual impacts of partial retention systems in boreal forests. For.
Ecol. Manage. 228 (1–3), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.031.
Meitner M J., 2004. Scenic beauty of river views in the Grand Canyon: relating
perceptual judgments to locations. Landscape and urban planning, 68(1): 3-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(03)00115-4.
Milcu, A.I., Hanspach, J., Abson, D., Fischer, J., 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: a
literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol. Soc. 18 (3) https://doi.org/
10.5751/es-05790-180344.
Miller, Patrick, Binyi, Liu, Zhen, Tang, 2013. Research on visual preference: a method to
understand landscape perception. Chinese Landscape Architecture 29 (05), 22–26.
Milne, B.T., 1991. The Utility of fractal Geometry in landscape design. 1991, 21 (1-2):
81-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(91)90034-J.
Min, S.H., Jeung, Y.H., Joo, W.Y., et al., 2016. A study on the mountainous landscape
impact review-system by the importance-performance analysis. Journal of the
Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 2016 (44), 29–39. https://doi.org/
10.9715/KILA.2016.44.1.029.
Naveh, Z., Lieberman, A.S., 2013. Landscape ecology: theory and application. Springer
Science & Business Media 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2331-1.
Oh, K., 1998. Visual threshold carrying capacity (VTCC) in urban landscape
management: A case study of Seoul, Korea. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1998, 39
(4): 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(97)00085-6.
Ostad-Ali-Askari, K., Shayan, M., 2021. Subsurface drain spacing in the unsteady
conditions by HYDRUS-3D and artificial neural networks. Arab J Geosci 14, 1936
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-08336-0.
Ostad-Ali-Askari, K., Shayannejad, M. & Ghorbanizadeh-Kharazi, H., 2017. Artificial
neural network for modeling nitrate pollution of groundwater in marginal area of
Zayandeh-rood River, Isfahan, Iran. KSCE J Civ Eng 21, 134–140 (2017). https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12205-016-0572-8.
Otero, I., Varela, E., Mancebo, S., et al., 2009. Analysis of visibility in the assessment of
the environmental impact of new constructions[J]. INFORMES DE LA
CONSTRUCCION, 2009, 61(515): 67-75. https://doi.org/10.3989/ic.09.014.
Palmer, J.F., Hoffman, R.E., 2001. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic
landscape assessments. Landscape and urban planning, 2001, 54(1-4): 149-161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00133-5.
Pereira, L.S., de Carvalho, D.M., da Cunha, L.S., 2019. Methodology for the semi-
quantitative evaluation of geoheritage applied to coastal geotourism in João Pessoa
(Paraíba, Northest Brazil). Geoheritage, 2019, 11(4): 1941-1953. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12371-019-00417-7.
Pullar, D.V., Tidey, M.E., 2001. Coupling 3D visualization to qualitative assessment of
built environment designs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, 55(1): 29-40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00148-1.
Pang, Shuying, Yang, Shiyu, Luo, Huasong, 2003. Study on evaluation model of tourism
geological resources in three-river parallel flow zone. Journal of Kunming University
of Science and Technology (Science and Technology Edition) 2003 (05), 10–12.
Qin, X., Zhang, N., Zhang, W., et al., 2020. How does tunnel interior color environment
influence driving behavior? Quantitative analysis and assessment experiment. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 2020, 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103320.
Ross. Jr R.W., 1979. The bureau of land management and visual resource
management—an overview. In: Elsner, Gary H., and Richard C. Smardon, technical
coordinators. 1979. Proceedings of our national landscape: a conference on applied
techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource [Incline Village, Nev.,
April 23-25, 1979]. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-35. Berkeley, CA. Pacific Southwest
Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture: p. 666-
670. 1979, 35.
Saffari, A., Ataei, M., Sereshki, F., et al., 2019. Environmental impact assessment (EIA)
by using the Fuzzy Delphi Folchi (FDF) method (case study: Shahrood cement plant,
Iran). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2019, 21(2): 817-860. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10668-017-0063-1.
Salameh, E., 2001. Environmental impacts of water-resources development of enclosed
basins: the case of the Dead Sea. Hydrogeology Journal, 2001, 9(4): 327. Doi:
10.1007/s100400100152.
Salehnasab, A, Feghi, J., Danekar, A., et al., 2016. Forest Park site selection based on a
Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process framework (Case study: the Galegol Basin, Lorestan
province, Iran). Journal of Forest Science, 2016, 62(6): 253-263. https://doi.org/
10.17221/42/2015-JFS.
Schauman, S., Adams, C., 1979. Soil conservation service landscape resource
management. In: Elsner, Gary H., and Richard C. Smardon, technical coordinators.
1979. Proceedings of our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for
analysis and management of the visual resource [Incline Village, Nev., April 23-25,
1979]. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-35. Berkeley, CA. Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Exp. Stn., Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture: p. 671-673. 1979, 35.
N. Kang and C. Liu
Schroeder, H.W., 1984. Environmental perception rating scales: A case for simple
methods of analysis. Environment and Behavior, 1984, 16(5): 573-598. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013916584165003.
Shao, Yuhan, Liu, Binyi, 2016. Analyzing the Visual Perception of Rural Landscape.
Chinese Landscape Architecture 32 (9), 5–10.
Smaalders, M., 1989. People, Place and Planning: Phenomenology and Human-
Environment Interaction, with Reference to the San Juan Islands. University of
Hawai’i at Manoa, 1989.
Sottini, V.A., et al., 2019. Rural environment and landscape quality: an evaluation model
integrating social media analysis and geostatistics techniques. Aestimum 2019,
43–62.
Sowińska-Świerkosz, B., Soszyński, D., 2019. The index of the Prognosis Rural Landscape
Preferences (IPRLP) as a tool of generalizing peoples’ preferences on rural landscape.
J. Environ. Manage. 248 (2019), 109272 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2019.109272.
Store, R., Karjalainen, E., Haara, A., et al., 2015. Producing a sensitivity assessment
method for visual forest landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann. 2015 (144), 128–141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.06.009.
Suh, J.H., Yang, H.S., 2004. A study on framing techniques of landscape assessment using
the Analytic Hierarchy Process-the assessment on the landscape control points.
Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 2004, 32(4): 94-104.
Sun Yi-nan, Zhao Xin, Wang Yu-hong, et al., 2016. Study on the visual evaluation
preference of rural landscape based on VR panorama. Journal of Beijing Forestry
University, 2016,38(12):104-112.
Toyokawa, K., Ichihara, K., 1999. The evaluation of comfortable images and eye
movements to forest landscape from forest road. Journal of the Japan Forest
Engineering Society (Japan), 1999. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?
recordID=JP2000001959.
Tveit, M., Ode, Å., Fry, G., 2006. Key concepts in a framework for analyzing visual
landscape character. Landscape research, 2006, 31(3): 229-255. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01426390600783269.
Vlami, V., Zogaris, S., Djuma, H., et al., 2019. A field method for landscape conservation
surveying: The landscape assessment protocol (LAP). Sustainability, 2019, 11(7).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072019.
Wagtendonk, A.J., Vermaat, J.E., 2014a. Visual perception of cluttering in landscapes:
Developing a low-resolution GIS-evaluation method. Landscape Urban Plann. 2014,
124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.006.
Wagtendonk, A.J., Vermaat, J.E., 2014b. Visual perception of cluttering in landscapes:
Developing a low resolution GIS-evaluation method. Landscape Urban Plann. 124,
85–92.
Wang, Ni, Peng, Shikui, 2011. Evaluation on Ecological Service Functions of Nanjing
Urban Forest Based on 3S Technology and AHP Method. Forest Resources
Management 2011 (6), 98–103.
Wissen, U., Schroth, O., Lange, E., et al., 2008. Approaches to integrating indicators into
3D landscape visualizations and their benefits for participative planning situations.
Journal of Environmental Management, 2008, 89(3): 184-196. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.062.
Wu, Boyang, Luan, Chunfeng, 2019. Landscape Evaluation of Erqi Square in Zhengzhou
City Based on AHP-Entropy Method. Urbanism and Architecture 16 (05), 74–75.
13
Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109174
Zhang, Xiao-jing, Chen Juan, LI Qiao-yu, et al., 2020. Color quantification and evaluation
of landscape aesthetic quality for autumn landscape forest based on visual
characteristics in subalpine region of western Sichuan, China. Chinese Journal of
Applied Ecology,2020,31(01):45-54.
Xiaojun, W., 1995. Psychophysical evaluation method of forest landscape beauty. World
Forestry Research 1995 (06), 8–15.
Yang Yang, Huang Shaowei, Tang Honghui., 2018. Research Progress of Landscape
Evaluation. Forest & Environmental Science, 2018, 34(1): 116-122.
Yanru, H., Masoudi, M., Chadala, A., et al., 2020. Visual Quality Assessment of Urban
Scenes with the Contemplative Landscape Model: Evidence from a Compact City
Downtown Core. Remote Sensing, 2020, 12(21): 3517. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rs12213517.
Yeomans, W.C., 1986. Visual Impact Assessment: Changes in natural and rural
environment. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis, John Willey & Sons, New York
1986, 201–222.
Yi, L., Yu, Z., Qian, J., et al., 2021. Evaluation of the heterogeneity in the intensity of
human interference on urbanized coastal ecosystems: Shenzhen (China) as a case
study. Ecol. Ind. 2021 (122), 107243 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolind.2020.107243.
Yokoya, N., Nakazawa, S., Matsuki, T., et al., 2014. Fusion of hyperspectral and LiDAR
data for landscape visual quality assessment. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied
Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2014, 7(6): 2419-2425. Doi: 10.1109/
JSTARS.2014.2313356.
Yu, K.J., 1987. On the concept of landscape and its development. Journal of Beijing
Forestry University 1987 (04), 433–439.
Yu, K.J., 1988. Landscape Preference: BIB-LCJ Procedure and Comparison of Landscape
Preference among Different Groups. Journal of Beijing Forestry University 1988
(02), 1–11.
Yu, Kongjian, 2008. The road of urban landscape leads to ecological and humanistic
ideal. Xinxiang Review 2008 (02), 54–58.
Zhang, Z., Pan, H.W., 2011. Advances in landscape evaluation of garden plants. Journal
of Zhejiang A&F university,2011,28(06):962-967.
Zheng, B., Guo, R., Bedra, K.B., et al., 2022. Quantitative Evaluation of Urban Style at
Street Level: A Case Study of Hengyang County, China. Land, 2022, 11(4): 453.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040453.
Zeng, Hui, Jiang, Ziying, Kong, Ningning, et al., 2000. Auto-correlation Analysis of
Landscape Pattern for a Fast Urbanization Area A Case Study of Longhua Area,
Shenzhen City. Journal of Peking University 36 (6), 824–831.
Zhang, Jiangshan, 1986. Application of fuzzy mathematics in environmental quality of
scenic spot. Journal of Fujian Normal University (Natural Science Edition) 1986
(03), 31–34.
Zhu, Xiaolei, 2003. Research on subjective Evaluation method of built Environment.
South China University of Technology, Guangdong.
Zube, E.H., 1974. Cross-disciplinary and intermode agreement in the description and
evaluation of landscape resources. Environ. Behav. 6 (1), 68–69. https://doi.org/
10.1177/001391657400600112.
Zu-liang, Wang, Yue-qin, Shen, Li-xia, Ding, et al., 2007. A management model for
tangible and intangible resources in nature reserve. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry
University 2007, 736–740.