Evaluation of the Relationship between the Visual Aesthetic Liking of Landscapes and Landscape Diversity with the Objective Paradigm

Abstract

There is an interactive relationship between humans and landscapes. This relationship can be evaluated with analytical methods and the results can be used to shape future landscapes. Conducted in Herakleia ad Latmos, including Lake Bafa and its environs, this study has two purposes: 1) to predict people's visual aesthetic liking (VAL) based on the fluency theory; and 2) to determine the relationship between the VAL of the landscape and landscape diversity. This research analyzed geotagged photographs (GPs) to evaluate the spatial distribution of people’s visits using the kernel density method and to predict people’s visual preferences in the landscape. The VAL value of the landscape was estimated by least squares regression. A Sentinel 2-A satellite image, dated 2020, was classified to map land cover. An artificial neural network classified the image with an accuracy of 99%. To assess landscape diversity, the Shannon diversity index (SHDI) and landscape shape index (SHAPE) were computed based on the classified land cover map. The result suggested that the density of GPs focused on Kapıkırı Village and its surroundings in the eastern part of Lake Bafa. A statistically significant relationship was found between landscape diversity and VAL (p <0.05). However, the correlation was weak and negative. The inference is that the density of GPs on landscapes with the same or similar characteristics may be biased with respect to relationships between the VAL of the landscape and landscape diversity. Therefore, analysis of the landscape VAL requires a combination of objective and subjective approaches.

Keywords

• Landscape diversity
• visual landscape
• fluency theory
• landscape metrics
• landscape composition

Peyzajın Görsel Estetik Değeri ve Peyzaj Çeşitliliği Arasındaki İlişkinin Objektif Paradigma ile Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

İnsan ve peyzaj arasında etkileşimli bir ilişki vardır. Bu ilişki, analitik yöntemlerle değerlendirilebilir ve sonuçları gelecek peyzajların tasarlanmasını/planlanmasını etkileyecek şekilde kullanılabilir. Bu araştırma, doğal ve kültürel peyzaj özellikleri ile dikkat çeken Bafa Gölü ve yakın çevresini kapsayan Herakleia ad Latmos’da yürütülmüştür. Bu araştırmanın iki amacı vardır: 1) insan ve peyzaj arasındaki etkileşimi görsel peyzajın estetik değerine dayandırarak insanların beğenisini akıcılık teorisine bağlı olarak tahmin etmek, 2) peyzajın görsel estetik değeri ile peyzaj kompozisyonu arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemek. Bu araştırmada, insanların peyzajdaki mekânsal dağılımını Kernel yoğunluğu yöntemi ile değerlendirmek ve insanların görsel tercihlerine dayanan peyzajın estetik değerini tahmin etmek için yersel işaretli sosyal medya fotoğrafları (YİF) analiz edilmiştir. Peyzajın görsel estetik değeri doğrusal regresyon modellerinden en küçük kareler yöntemi (OLS) ile tahmin edilmiştir. Bu araştırmada, peyzaj metriklerini hesaplamak amacıyla üretilen 2020 yılına ait arazi örtüsü haritası, Sentinel 2-A görüntüsü kullanılarak yapay sinir ağları yöntemi ile % 99 doğrulukla sınıflandırılmıştır. Peyzaj çeşitliliğinin değerlendirilmesinde, peyzaj metriklerinden peyzaj çeşitliliğini değerlendiren Shannon çeşitlilik endeksi (SHDI) ve peyzajın şekilsel kompozisyonunu ölçen şekil endeksi (SHAPE) kullanılmıştır. Sonuç, YİF yoğunluğunun Bafa Gölü’nün doğusundaki Kapıkırı Köyü ve çevresinde yoğunlaştığını göstermektedir. Peyzaj çeşitliliği ile insanın görsel beğenisi arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuş (p < 0,05), ancak ilişkilerin zayıf ve negatif yönlü olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. YİF yoğunluğunun aynı ya da birbirine yakın karaktere sahip peyzajlar üzerinde olmasının, peyzajın görsel estetik değeri ile peyzaj çeşitliliği arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlerken önyargı oluşturabileceği tahmin edilmiştir. Bu nedenle, peyzajın görsel estetik değerini analiz ederken objektif paradigmaya sübjektif paradigmanın entegre edilmesinin gerekliliği tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• akıcılık teorisi
• peyzaj metrikleri
• peyzaj kompozisyonu
• Görsel peyzaj
• Latmos

References

1. Appleton, J. (1975a). The Experience of Landscape, Revised Editon (1996), Wiley, pp.282, England.
2. Appleton, J. (1975b). Landscape Evaluation: The Theoretical Vacuum, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, No. 66: 120- 123.
3. Arslan, E. S., Örücü, Ö. K. (2020). MaxEnt modelling of the potential distribution areas of cultural ecosystem services using social media data and GIS. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-13.
4. Atik, M., Işıklı, R. C., Ortaçeşme, V., Yıldırım, E. (2017). Exploring a combination of objective and subjective assessment in landscape classification: Side case from Turkey. Applied Geography, 83, 130-140.
5. Aydın Valiliği, (2019). Aydın İli 2018 Yılı Çevre Durum Raporu. Aydın Çevre ve Şehircilik İl Müdürlüğü. https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/icerikler/aydin_cdr_2018_sonn-20191118140602.pdf. (20.07.2020).
6. Bell, S. (2001). Landscape pattern, perception and visualisation in the visual management of forests. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4), 201-211.
7. Benediktsson, J. A., Sveinsson, J. R. (1997). Feature extraction for multisource data classification with artificial neural networks. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 18(4), 727-740.
8. Berlyne, D. E. (1974). The new experimental aesthetics. In: Berlyne, D. E. (Ed.): Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps Towards an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. 1st ed. Washington, DC: Hemisphere, pp. 1-25.

9. Checkosky, S. F., Whitlock, D. (1973). Effects of pattern goodness on recognition time in a memory search task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100(2), 341.
10. Civco, D. L. (1993). Artificial neural networks for land-cover classification and mapping. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 7(2), 173-186.
11. Çakcı, I., Çelem, H. (2009). Kent parklarında görsel peyzaj algısının değerlendirilmesi. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(1), 88-95.
12. Çorbacı, Ö. L., Oğuztürk, T. (2019). Evaluation of Amasra’s Visual Landscape Quality in Terms of Natural, Historical, and Cultural Values. In: Özyavuz M, editor. New Approaches to Spatial Planning and Design. 1st ed. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang, pp. 379-396.
13. Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4), 267-281.
14. de Val, G. D. L. F., Atauri, J. A., de Lucio, J. V. (2006). Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: a test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77(4), 393-407.
15. Dinçer, A. A. Y. (2011). Görsel Peyzaj Kalitesinin Biçimsel Estetik Değerlendirme Yaklaşımı ile İrdelenmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Master Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, 123 s.
16. DKMP, (2020). Korunan Alanlar-Bafa Gölü Tabiat Parkı. Doğa Koruma ve Milli Parklar Genel Müdürlüğü. http://bafagolu.tabiat.gov.tr/ (10.05.2020).
17. Dramstad, W. E., Tveit, M. S., Fjellstad, W. J., Fry, G. L. (2006). Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and urban planning, 78(4), 465-474.
18. Esbah, H., Deniz, B., Kara, B., Kesgin, B. (2010). Analyzing landscape changes in the Bafa Lake Nature Park of Turkey using remote sensing and landscape structure metrics. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 165(1-4), 617-632.
19. F., Aşur, Alphan, H. (2018). Görsel peyzaj kalite değerlendirmesi ve alan kullanım planlamasına olan etkileri. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 28(1), 117-125.
20. Figueroa-Alfaro, R. W., Tang, Z. (2017). Evaluating the aesthetic value of cultural ecosystem services by mapping geo-tagged photographs from social media data on Panoramio and Flickr. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(2), 266-281.
21. Foltête, J. C., Ingensand, J., Blanc, N. (2020). Coupling crowd-sourced imagery and visibility modelling to identify landscape preferences at the panorama level. Landscape and Urban Planning, 197, 103756.
22. Fox, N., August, T., Mancini, F. Parks, K. E., Eigenbrod, F., Bullock, J. M., Sutter, L., Graham, L. J. (2020). R photosearcher package. https://github.com/ropensci/photosearcher. Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., Witt, A., Makeschin, F. (2013). Assessment of landscape aesthetics Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecological Indicators, 32, 222-231.
23. Gosal, A. S., Ziv, G. (2020). Landscape aesthetics: Spatial modelling and mapping using social media images and machine learning. Ecological Indicators, 117, 106638.
24. Gül, M., Zorlu, K., Gül, M. (2019). Assessment of mining impacts on environment in Muğla-Aydın (SW Turkey) using Landsat and Google Earth imagery. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191(11), 655.
25. Ha, S., Yang, Z. (2019). Evaluation for landscape aesthetic value of the Natural World Heritage Site. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191(8), 483.
26. Hall, P., Sheather, S. J., Jones, M. C., Marron, J. S. (1991). On optimal data-based bandwidth selection in kernel density estimation. Biometrika, 78(2), 263-269.
27. Herda, A., Brückner, H., Müllenhoff, M., Knipping, M. (2019). From the Gulf of Latmos to Lake Bafa: On the history, geoarchaeology, and palynology of the lower Maeander Valley at the foot of the Latmos Mountains. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 88(1), 1-86.
28. Hesselbarth, M. H., Sciaini, M., With, K. A., Wiegand, K., Nowosad, J. (2019). landscapemetrics: an open‐source R tool to calculate landscape metrics. Ecography, 42(10), 1648-1657.
29. Hetemoğlu, M. A. (2019). Interpretation and presentation of the Byzantine heritage at Herakleia ad Latmos. Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University Natural and Applied Sciences, Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Architecture Department, Ankara, 272 p.
30. Hu, Y., Gao, S., Janowicz, K., Yu, B., Li, W., Prasad, S. (2015). Extracting and understanding urban areas of interest using geotagged photos. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 54, 240-254.
31. Junge, X., Lindemann-Matthies, P., Hunziker, M., Schüpbach, B. (2011). Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biological Conservation, 144(5), 1430-1440.
32. Kadavi, P. R., Lee, C. W. (2018). Land cover classification analysis of volcanic island in Aleutian Arc using an artificial neural network (ANN) and a support vector machine (SVM) from Landsat imagery. Geosciences Journal, 22(4), 653-665.
33. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., Ryan, R. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Island press.
34. Knipping, M., Müllenhoff, M., Brückner, H. (2008). Human induced landscape changes around Bafa Gölü (western Turkey). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 17(4), 365-380.
35. Kocalar, A. C. (2020). Latmos Geopark (Beşparmak Mountains) with Herakleia-Latmos Antique Harbour City and Bafa Lake Natural Park in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 4(4), 176-182.
36. Koçak, F., Aydın-Önen, S., Açık, Ş., Küçüksezgin, F. (2017). Seasonal and spatial changes in water and sediment quality variables in Bafa Lake. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(17), 617.
37. Krause, C. L. (2001). Our visual landscape: Managing the landscape under special consideration of visual aspects. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4), 239-254.
38. Li, C., Wang, J., Wang, L., Hu, L., Gong, P. (2014). Comparison of classification algorithms and training sample sizes in urban land classification with Landsat thematic mapper imagery. Remote sensing, 6(2), 964-983.
39. Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B., Junge, X. (2010). Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98(2), 99-109.
40. Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landscape and Urban Planning, 44(4), 177-198.
41. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge University Press, pp.489, Cambridge.
42. Lyons, M. B., Keith, D. A., Phinn, S. R., Mason, T. J., Elith, J. (2018). A comparison of resampling methods for remote sensing classification and accuracy assessment. Remote Sensing of Environment, 208, 145-153.
43. Mahmon, N. A., Ya'acob, N. (2014). A review on classification of satellite image using Artificial Neural Network (ANN). In: 2014 IEEE 5th Control and System Graduate Research Colloquium, 11–12 August 2014; Shah Alam, Malaysia. IEEE, pp. 153-157.
44. Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The fractal geometry of nature. New York, NY: Freeman and Co.
45. Mayer, S., Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Quantifying visual aesthetics based on processing fluency theory: Four algorithmic measures for antecedents of aesthetic preferences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(4), 399.
46. McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Ene, E. (2012). FRAGSTATS v4: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical and continuous maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
47. Nadal, M., Munar, E., Marty, G., Cela-Conde, C. J. (2010). Visual complexity and beauty appreciation: Explaining the divergence of results. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(2), 173-191.
48. Nassauer, J. I. (1992). The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecology, 6(4), 239-250.
49. Nielsen, A. B., Heyman, E., Richnau, G. (2012). Liked, disliked and unseen forest attributes: Relation to modes of viewing and cognitive constructs. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 456-466.
50. Ode, Å., Hagerhall, C. M., Sang, N. (2010). Analysing visual landscape complexity: theory and application. Landscape Research, 35(1), 111-131.
51. Oktay, H. E., Erdoğan, R., Bayram, Ş. (2019). Peyzaj estetiği ve bu bağlamda üretilmiş olan teoriler. Uluslararası Sanat ve Estetik Dergisi, 2(2), 81-95.
52. Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Herold, M., Stehman, S. V., Woodcock, C. E., Wulder, M. A. (2014). Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sensing of Environment, 148, 42-57.
53. Özdemir, A., Fenkçi, M. S. (2016). İşitsel ve görsel peyzaj algısının hasta psikolojisindeki rolü. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(2), 3022-3032.
54. Özel, N. (1996). Beşparmak Dağları ve Dilek Yarımadası Milli Parkı Bitki Örtüsü Üzerine Araştırmalar. T.C. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Ege Ormancılık Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü, Teknik Bülten, (1).
55. Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77-107.
56. Peschlow, U. (2017). Mount Latmos. In: Niewohner , P. (Ed.): The Archaeology of Byzantine Anatolia: From the End of Late Antiquity until the Coming of the Turks, Oxford University Press, Newyork, pp. 264-268.
57. Reid, W.V., Mooney, H.A., Cropper, A., Capistrano, D., Carpenter, S.R., Chopra, K., Dasgupta, P., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.K., Hassan, R. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being-Synthesis: A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press.
58. Roth, M., Gruehn, D. (2012). Visual Landscape Assessment for Large Areas-Using GIS, Internet Surveys and Statistical Methodologies. Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 66, 129-142.
59. Saunders, F. P. (2013). Seeing and doing conservation differently: a discussion of landscape aesthetics, wilderness, and biodiversity conservation. The Journal of Environment & Development, 22(1), 3-24.
60. Schlkopf, B., Smola, A. J., Bach, F. (2002). Learning with kernels: support vector machines, regularization, optimization, and beyond. The MIT Press.
61. Schulz, C. N. (1980). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. Academy Editions, London. Rizoli Press, pp. 213, New York, USA.
62. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423.
63. Simoncelli, E. P., Olshausen, B. A. (2001). Natural image statistics and neural representation. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 1193-1216.
64. Skrivanova, Z., Kalivoda, O. (2010). Perception and assessment of landscape aesthetic values in the Czech Republic–a literature review. Journal of Landscape Studies, 3, 211-220.
65. Stokstad, G., Krøgli, S. O., Dramstad, W. E. (2020). The look of agricultural landscapes–How do non-crop landscape elements contribute to visual preferences in a large-scale agricultural landscape?. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 1-12.
66. Thanh Noi, P., Kappas, M. (2018). Comparison of random forest, k-nearest neighbor, and support vector machine classifiers for land cover classification using Sentinel-2 imagery. Sensors, 18(1), 18.
67. Tribot, A. S., Deter, J., Mouquet, N. (2018). Integrating the aesthetic value of landscapes and biological diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1886), 20180971.
68. Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topohilia, A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values, Columbia University Press, pp. 260, USA.
69. Turgut, H., Duman, G. (2020). Akarsu Kıyılarının Kent Kimliğine Katkısı: Çoruh Nehri Örneği. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2), 1-1.
70. Tveit, M. S. (2009). Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(9), 2882-2888.
71. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44.
72. Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. The Biophilia Hypothesis, 7, 73-137.
73. Von Haaren, C., Albert, C. (2011). Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 7(3), 150-167.
74. Wagemans, J. (1997). Characteristics and models of human symmetry detection. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(9), 346-352.
75. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia, Harvard University Press, pp. 157, USA.
76. Xu, M., Luo, T., Wang, Z. (2020). Urbanization diverges residents’ landscape preferences but towards a more natural landscape: case to complement landsenses ecology from the lens of landscape perception. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 27(3), 250-260.
77. Yoshimura, N., Hiura, T. (2017). Demand and supply of cultural ecosystem services: Use of geotagged photos to map the aesthetic value of landscapes in Hokkaido. Ecosystem Services, 24, 68-78.
78. Yuan, H., Van Der Wiele, C. F., Khorram, S. (2009). An automated artificial neural network system for land use/land cover classification from Landsat TM imagery. Remote Sensing, 1(3), 243-265.