Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
However, this does not invalidate such research:
landscape policy is dynamic and designation
systems can be changed (Box 16.1). Landscape
evaluation research needs to develop a raft of
methods that can assist future policy revision.
Once designated, the practical problems of
managing protected landscapes raise the very issues
that landscape evaluation research addresses:
managers need to clarify the purpose of
designation and identify the qualities for which
the landscape is valued before effective
management prescriptions can be found.
Evaluation research has found a practical
application at this later stage in the planning
process. Landscape managers are also required to
justify the social and economic costs of
management. This has led policy makers to
perceive a need to express landscape value in
monetary terms.
The applied researcher's job is first to translate
all these policy needs into researchable questions,
and then after the research is complete, to repackage
and present the results to the practitioner in a way
that is understandable, politically realistic and usable.
The simplification that may occur at this stage does
not mean that the research itself is any less rigorous
than theoretical work, rather the reverse. If
important resource allocation decisions are made
on the basis of the results, it must be as rigorous as
possible. The extent to which policy-related and
applied research is actually used in practice is a
function not only of the researcher's presentation
skills but also of the policy maker's perception of
the need for research.
The next section illustrates the different ways
in which researchers have analysed the nature of
the problem from different theoretical standpoints,
and how they have reduced the issues to
researchable questions.
judgement' of aesthetic quality was quickly
abandoned as a foundation for decision making
because of the implied subjectivity and lack of
rigour. In its place, researchers concentrated on the
more fundamental research questions and
methodological problems that had to be resolved
before researchers could offer policy makers useful
conclusions. These were:
1
How do people perceive landscapes?
2
Can people's preferences for different
landscapes be measured? if so
3
What quantifiable visual landscape features are
associated with the most preferred landscapes?
4
Is it possible to measure preferences for
specific elements of the landscape?
5
Is there a consensus of opinion as to which
landscapes are the most preferred? if not
6
What factors explain the variation in people's
visual evaluation of landscapes (such as
personality, motivation, socio-economic
factors and cultural background).
Geographers have adapted and applied theories
and techniques drawn from environmental
psychology to explore these issues (Zube
et al
.
1982; Uzzell 1991). The research was generally
approached from a positivist standpoint, using
quantitative methods. The general assumption of
this type of research was that people's response to
the visual characteristics of the landscape could be
measured accurately and that landscape
preferences reflected aesthetic quality.
This type of research originally took the policy
makers' view that landscape beauty was a function
of the landscape itself (and was therefore
mappable), but the results soon shifted research
towards seeking an understanding of the
psychological make up, the functional
requirements and the cultural context of the
viewer of the landscape.
Many studies, including cross-cultural studies,
suggest a consensus of preference for land with
high relative relief and with green (or varied)
vegetation. However, cross-cultural quantitative
research has shown some cultural differences in
preference patterns (e.g. Yu 1995). This indicated
that preference (or landscape taste) for some
Landscape evaluation research into the
visual qualities of landscapes
The policy makers question 'which landscapes are
the most beautiful, best or most preferred' and 'can
they be mapped', but these questions in themselves
are not directly researchable. The use of 'expert
