Landscape Research

ISSN: 0142-6397 (Print) 1469-9710 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using

Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape
Aesthetic Theory

Åsa Ode , Mari S. Tveit & Gary Fry

To cite this article: Åsa Ode , Mari S. Tveit & Gary Fry (2008) Capturing Landscape Visual
Character Using Indicators: Touching Base with Landscape Aesthetic Theory, Landscape
Research, 33:1, 89-117, DOI: 10.1080/01426390701773854

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701773854

Published online: 14 Jan 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10963

View related articles

Citing articles: 159 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=clar20
Landscape Research,
Vol. 33, No. 1, 89 – 117, February 2008

Capturing Landscape Visual Character

Using Indicators: Touching Base with
Landscape Aesthetic Theory
ÅSA ODE*, MARI S. TVEIT{ & GARY FRY{
*Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden {Norwegian University of
Life Sciences, Norway

ABSTRACT This paper presents one way that landscape visual character can be captured using
indicators derived from nine theory-based concepts related to landscape perception. The paper
aims to establish links between landscape aesthetic theory and visual indicators, thus exploring
what landscape indicators are really indicating. The steps from abstract visual concepts to
measurable visual indicators are described, and links are made to theories of landscape
preferences and perception. The focus of the paper is on the application of indicators, including a
presentation of the possible data sources of the presented indicators. The paper includes a
discussion on the selection of appropriate landscape indicators through a suggested filtering
process. The relationships between the concepts and the ability of visual indicators to capture
changes in landscape character and other issues related to interpretation are discussed.

KEY WORDS: Visual character, landscape indicator, landscape analysis

Introduction
This paper describes a framework for assessment of landscape visual
character using theory-based visual indicators. The landscape perspective in
management, planning and policy is a current focus in Europe, as part of the
European Landscape Convention (ELC) adopted in the year 2000 by the European
Council. The ELC defines landscape as ‘‘an area, as perceived by people, whose
character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human
factors’’ (Council of Europe, 2000). This definition puts the focus on the human
experience of landscape, highlighting issues of the perception and character of a
landscape.
The framework presented in this paper relates closely to Landscape Character
Assessment (Swanwick, 2002), but encompasses only the visual character of a
landscape. A landscape assessment focuses on describing the landscape in contrast to
a landscape evaluation which strives to identify what makes one landscape better or
worse.

Correspondence Address: Åsa Ode, Department of Landscape Architecture, Swedish University of

Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 58, SE230 53 Alnarp, Sweden. Email: asa.ode@ltj.slu.se

ISSN 0142-6397 Print/1469-9710 Online/08/010089-29 Ó 2008 Landscape Research Group Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/01426390701773854
90 Å. Ode et al.

Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) has been developed as a tool to

include issues of the experience of landscape (among others) within management,
planning and monitoring (Wascher, 2005). One of the most widely applied
schemes is the system developed by the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural
Heritage, and carried out for England and Scotland (Swanwick, 2002). Landscape
character is defined here as a ‘‘distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of
elements in the landscape that makes one landscape different from another, rather
then better or worse’’ (Swanwick, 2002). In England, the landscape character
types identified form the basis for the monitoring scheme Countryside Quality
Counts, where change in character is one important component. The method
developed in England and Scotland has been used as the basis for the
implementation of landscape character assessment across Europe (e.g. Denmark
[Miljøministeriet, 2007], Sweden [Länsstyrelsen i Skåne, 2006]). The LCA as
developed for England and Scotland has a holistic approach towards landscape
character, integrating all the aspects contributing to character for defining
character areas. This contrasts with systems such as LANDMAP in Wales where
the different aspects (e.g. visual and sensory, landscape form, historical landscape,
cultural landscapes) contributing towards character are kept as separate
information layers that can be combined for different purposes (Countryside
Council for Wales, 2006).
It has been argued that identifying character is, to a large extent, built upon
human perception and therefore landscape character assessment can be questioned
with regards to its scientific rigour and hence its role as an analytical tool for
landscape planning (Wascher, 2005). This paper describes an approach to the
development of visual landscape indicators linked to landscape character. We believe
that such an approach can make a valuable contribution to the development and
application of landscape characterization (Table 1).

Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators

Landscape indicators provide possibilities for a more objective basis for identifying
landscape character through dividing the totality of our visual perception of the
physical landscape into quantifiable characteristics. Visual landscape indicators are
less well developed than for those of other landscape functions (Dramstad & Sogge,

Table 1. Definitions used in the paper

Definitions
Landscape
Landscape visual character
Visual landscape assessment
Landscape analysis
‘‘An area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result
of the action and interaction of natural and/or human
factors’’ (Council of Europe, 2000)
The visual expression of the spatial elements, structure and
pattern in the landscape
A process that aims at analysing visual landscape character
A systematic process of describing landscape attributes,
their spatial pattern and their importance to people
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 91

2003). However, there has been a recent increase in developing the application of
visual indicators in response to the demand to incorporate aspects of human
perception of landscape (e.g. Jessel, 2006; Wascher, 2005; Palmer, 2004; Germino
et al., 2001; Weinstoerffer & Girardin, 2000; van Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999; Gulinck
et al., 1999).
Our aim is to present a framework which is able to capture the visual character of
a landscape and describe landscape change over time. The approach builds on the
conceptual framework established by Tveit et al. (2006), and will take the framework
towards the application of visual indicators. The output is meant to be descriptive
rather than normative, thus referred to as landscape visual character rather than
visual quality. An objective landscape visual character assessment could however
form a useful basis for subsequent evaluation of landscape visual quality, for
example, in a management or policy setting.
The framework consists of nine concepts of visual landscape character considered
important in landscape aesthetic literature (see later), and the provision of indicators
related to these different aspects of the visual landscape helps us identify which
aspects are affected by landscape change. Thus, the framework makes it possible to
identify the nature of landscape change, and thereby the impact of changes on the
visual qualities of the landscape. We believe this could be very useful in assessment
and monitoring of both particular aspects as well as the totality of a landscape’s
visual character.
As in Tveit et al. (2006), this theoretical framework consists of four levels of
abstraction linking indicators to landscape aesthetic theory; concepts, dimensions,
landscape attributes and indicators. The concepts should be seen as an umbrella term
under which different dimensions and synonyms of the concept are found. Both the
concept and dimension levels are abstractions of the landscape’s physical attributes.
The indicators represent the level at which the landscape attributes could be
measured and quantified.

Visual Landscape Indicators and Their Support in Theory

This paper is based on a literature review covering papers on landscape aesthetics,
visual concepts and landscape preferences, including both suggested and
empirically tested visual indicators. From the literature, nine visual concepts
were identified which together characterize the visual landscape. These were:
complexity, coherence, disturbance, stewardship, imageability, visual scale,
naturalness, historicity, and ephemera. The nine concepts are supported by
different theories explaining people’s experience of landscape and their landscape
preferences. While this paper focuses on landscape character, theories developed
for explaining and predicting preference provide a basis for explaining what is
important for our experience of landscape. These theories could thereby aid in
identifying what characteristics of the visual landscape are important to describe.
Table 2 presents the nine visual concepts and outlines their relationship to
different landscape aesthetic theories.
Through the use of the theoretical framework developed by Tveit et al. (2006)
visual indicators could be linked to specific visual concepts that are contributing to
landscape character. This section will present the visual indicators identified for the
92 Å. Ode et al.

Table 2. Concepts describing landscape character—relationships to theories of landscape

preference and experience

Concept Theory References

Complexity Biophilia Kellert & Wilson (1993)
Coherence Information Processing Theory Kaplan & Kaplan (1982, 1989)
Disturbance Biophilia Kellert & Wilson (1993)
Stewardship Aesthetic of care Nassauer (1995)
Imageability Spirit of place/genius Lynch (1960); Litton (1972);
loci/vividness Bell (1999)
Topophilia Tuan (1974)
Visual scale Prospect-refuge theory Appleton (1975)
Information Processing Theory Kaplan & Kaplan (1982, 1989)
Naturalness Restorative landscapes Kaplan & Kaplan (1989);
Ulrich (1979, 1984)
Biophilia hypothesis Kellert & Wilson (1993)
Historicity Topophilia Tuan (1974)
Landscape heritage/ Lowenthal (1979, 1985);
historic landscapes Fairclough et al. (1999)
Ephemera Restorative landscapes Kaplan & Kaplan (1989);
Ulrich (1979, 1984)

nine concepts. Based on the literature we suggest ways to apply the indicators using
different data sources: landscape photos, land cover data, orthophotos and field
observation.

Indicators of Complexity
Complexity refers to the diversity and richness of landscape elements and features
and the interspersion of patterns in the landscape. Complexity is a factor in the
Kaplan’s Informational Processing Theory, where complexity provides content
and things to think about (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). An overly complex
landscape is also likely to affect the legibility of the landscape as a consequence of
offering too much information. The Biophilia hypothesis presented by Kellert
and Wilson (1993) states the importance of diversity in relation to nature,
both with regards to species and landscape types. The indicators of
complexity describe the complexity of landscape both with regards to content
and spatial configuration. In the literature three groups of indicators could be
distinguished:

1. Distribution of Landscape Attributes, which focuses on the number of landscape

elements:

. Density of landscape elements (de la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; Gulinck et al.,
2001; Schüpbach, 2002)
. Diversity of landscape attributes (de la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; Germino
et al., 2001; Giles & Trani, 1999; Gulinck et al., 2001; Hunziker & Kienast,
1999; Palmer, 2004; van Mansvelt & Kupier, 1999)
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 93

2. Spatial Organization of Landscape Attributes, focusing on which degree this

could be perceived as complex or simple. For this group the following indicators
have been suggested in literature:

. Edge density (Germino et al., 2001; Palmer, 2004)

. Heterogeneity (Dramstad et al., 2001; Fjellstad et al., 2001)
. Aggregation (de la Fuente de Val et al., 2006)

3. Variation and Contrast between landscape elements.

. Degree of contrast (Hands & Brown, 2002; Arriaza et al., 2004)

. Shape variation (Giles & Trani, 1999; de la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; Gulinck
et al., 2001; Hulshoff, 1995; Palmer, 2004; Weinstoerffer & Girardin, 2000)
. Size variation (Giles & Trani, 1999; de la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; Gulinck
et al., 2001; Hulshoff, 1995; Palmer, 2004; Weinstoerffer & Girardin, 2000)

Complexity is a concept that has been focused on in landscape ecological studies (e.g.
Green et al., 2007) and hence several types of indicators have been developed for the
application on land cover and orthophotos, as shown in Table 3. Most of these
indicators could be applied using programs such as FRAGSTAT (McGarigal et al.,
2002). Landscape photos and field observation can provide detailed information about
landscape elements not covered by land cover data, for example, linear and point
elements and the density of these in the landscape. Landscape photos and field
observations will often be necessary to assess the contrast between different land covers.

Indicators of Coherence
Coherence relates to the unity of a scene, the degree of repeating patterns of colour
and texture as well as a correspondence between land use and natural conditions.
Coherence is one factor for predicting preference within the Information Processing
Theory, and it refers to a more immediate understanding and readability of our
environment (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). The indicators of coherence identified in the
literature focus, to a large extent, on the spatial arrangement of landscape elements
and can be broadly divided into:

1. The Spatial Arrangement of Water.

. Presence of water (Kuiper, 2000; van Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999)

. Correspondence of land form and location of water (Kuiper, 2000; van
Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999)

2. Spatial Arrangement of Vegetation.

. Correspondence with expected natural conditions (van Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999)
. Fragmentation (Litton, 1972; Palmer, 2004)
. Repetition of pattern across the landscape (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Pearson,
2002)
 94

Table 3. Complexity—suggested indicators and application using different data sources

Data source
Concept
Complexity Landscape photos Orthophotos Land cover data Field observations
Å. Ode et al.

1. Distribution of landscape attributes

. Richness of landscape elements Number of landscape Number of Number of Number of
elements per view landscape landscape landscape
elements per area elements elements
per area per area
. Diversity of land cover Number of different Diversity and Diversity and Number of
land covers per view evenness indicesa evenness indicesa different
land covers
per area
2. Spatial organization of landscape attributes
. Edge density Edge densitya Edge densitya
. Heterogeneity Heterogeneity Indexb Heterogeneity Indexb
. Aggregation of land cover/patches Aggregation indicesa Aggregation indicesa
3. Variation and contrast
. Contrast Degree of contrast Degree of contrast
between land between land covers
covers in view
. Shape variation Degree of variation Shape indicesa Shape indicesa Degree of variation
between shapes between shapes
in view
. Size variation Degree of variation Size distribution Size distribution Degree of variation
between size indicesa indicesa between size
in view
a
A range of diversity, evenness, edge density, aggregation, shape and size distribution indices are found within landscape metric software such as
FRAGSTAT (McGarigal et al., 2002) and IAN (DeZonia & Mladenoff, 2004) developed within landscape ecology.
b
The heterogeneity index is the proportion of points on different land types and is calculated using a grid of points for which land types are recorded
(see Fjellstad et al., 2001, for full detail of how to calculate the index).
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 95

The indicators represented in the literature are limited for coherence (see Table 4).
Spatial arrangement of water could be estimated for all four types of data. The
correspondence between land form and water location does, however, require
information on elevation in order to estimate the degree of low lying areas with water.
The spatial arrangement of vegetation could be quantified for all three types of data using
measures of fragmentation and repetition of pattern. Estimation of the correspondence
with natural conditions requires detailed information. When information on what could
have naturally occurred is available, the degree to which the landscape is in agreement
with this could be estimated using land cover data or through field observation.

Indicators of Disturbance
Disturbance refers to the lack of contextual fit and coherence in a landscape. The
Information Processing Theory identifies, as presented earlier, coherence as one
information factor (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). A high degree of disturbance is likely
to result in a low level of coherence. The Biophilia hypothesis of Kellert and Wilson
(1993) states the human biological need to affiliate with nature, and the consequences
of disturbance in the context of human well-being (Kellert, 1996). Indicators of
disturbance could be divided into:

1. Presence of Disturbing Elements.

. Attributes classified as disturbance (Arriaza et al., 2004; Gulinck et al., 2001)

2. Visual Impact of Disturbance.

. Area visually affected by disturbance (Gulinck et al., 2001; Hopkinson, 1971;
Iverson, 1985)

To apply indicators of disturbance it is necessary to identify which landscape

elements are perceived as disturbing (see Table 5). This could be done both for land
cover data, landscape photos and field observations, while orthophotos are less able to
pick this up.

Indicators of Stewardship
Stewardship refers to the sense of order and care present in the landscape reflecting
active and careful management. Care is a central concept in the ‘aesthetics of care’ devel-
oped by Nassauer (1995, 1997) where visual cues of care are used to explain preference.
Indicators of stewardship describe the degree of care and upkeep in the landscape.
The literature suggests two groups of indicators for stewardship:

1. Level of Management for Vegetation. This has been described as the level of
cultivatedness (van den Berg et al., 1998), and the following indicators are
suggested in the literature:

. Level of abandonment/stage of succession (Nassauer, 1995).

. Presence of weed (Nassauer, 1995; van Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999).
 96
Å. Ode et al.

Table 4. Coherence—suggested indicators and application using different data sources

Data source
Concept
Coherence Landscape photos Orthophotos Land cover data Field observations
1. Spatial arrangement of water
. Presence of water % of water cover % of water cover % of water cover Proportion of water cover
. Correspondence land form % of area in % of area in % of area in Proportion of area
and water location correspondence correspondence correspondence in correspondence
2. Spatial arrangement of vegetation
. Correspondence with % of area in % of area in % of area in Proportion of area
natural conditions correspondence correspondence correspondence in correspondence
. Fragmentation Fragmentation indicesa Fragmentation indicesa
. Repetition of pattern across Presence of repeated Autocorrelation indicesb Autocorrelation indicesb Presence of repeated
the landscape patterns patterns
a
A range of fragmentation indices are suggested in landscape metric software such as FRAGSTAT (McGarigal et al., 2002) and IAN (DeZonia
& Mladenoff, 2004) developed within landscape ecology.
b
Autocorrelation indices are found within different GIS software packages, such as ArcGIS.
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 97

Table 5. Disturbance—suggested indicators and application using different data sources

Concept Data source

Landscape Land Field
Disturbance photos Orthophotos cover data observations
1. Presence of disturbing
elements
. Landscape elements Density of % of area % of area Density of
classified as disturbed disturbing classified classified disturbing
elements in as visually as visually objects
the view disturbed disturbed
2. Visual impact of disturbing
elements
. Area visually affected % of area % of area % of area
by disturbance visually visually visually
affected affected affected

. Management type (Sheppard, 2001; van Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999).

. Management frequency (van Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999; Weinstoerffer &
Girardin, 2000).
. Management detail (Nassauer, 1995; Sheppard, 2001; van Mansvelt & Kuiper,
1999).

2. Status and Conditions of Man-made Structures in the Landscape. Within the

group, two indicators have been distinguished.

. Status and maintenance of structures such as farm buildings and fences

(Laurie, 1975; Nassauer, 1995; Weinstoerffer & Girardin, 2000).

The application of different stewardship indicators depends on the available

data (see Table 6). Land cover data depend on the level of detail in the
classifications that permits different forms of reclassification based on succession
and management type. Orthophotos depend on the identification of characteristics
for different levels of stewardship. Field observations and landscape photos
could provide information of different levels of management, although
accurate measures related to area can be less readily available through these
data sources.

Indicators of Imageability
Imageability reflects the ability of a landscape to create a strong visual image in the
observer and thereby making it distinguishable and memorable. Imageability can be
a product of the totality of a landscape or its elements. Imageability is related to
theories of spirit of place (Bell, 1999), genius loci (Lynch, 1960) and vividness
(Litton, 1972) and Topophilia (Tuan, 1974). Two groups of indicators are
distinguished in the literature:
 98
Å. Ode et al.

Table 6. Stewardship—suggested indicators and application using different data sources

Data source
Concept
Stewardship Landscape photos Orthophotos Land cover data Field observations
1. Level of management for vegetation
. Level of abandonment % of vegetation in % of vegetation in % of vegetation in % of vegetation in
different stages of different stages of different stages different stages of
abandonment (1 – 4)a abandonment (1 – 4)a of abandonment abandonment (1 – 4)a
(1 – 4)a
. Presence of weed Density of weed Density of weed Density of weed
. Management type % of area under different % of area under % of area under % of area under
management regimes different management different management different management
regimes regimes regimes
. Management frequency Number of highly Number of highly
maintained features maintained features
2. Condition of man-made structures
. Condition/maintenance Number of structures in Number of structures
of structures such as different conditions (1 – 4)a in different
fences, buildings conditions (1 – 4)a
a
e.g. 1 ¼ highly maintained/no abandonment; 2 ¼ partly maintained; 3 ¼ poorly maintained; 4 ¼ no maintenance/total abandonment.
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 99

1. Spectacular, Unique and Iconic Elements are the focus for the first type of
indicators. The following indicators are suggested:

. Spectacular, unique or iconic built features (Coeterier, 2002; Green, 1999)

. Landmark (Green, 1999)
. Water (Hammitt et al., 1994; Litton et al., 1974)
. Historical elements (Jessel, 2006)

2. Viewpoints are the second type of indicators that are connected to this concept.
The following indicators have been suggested:

. Density of viewpoints (Gobster, 2001)

Most of the indicators related to spectacular, unique and iconic elements

cannot be estimated using orthophotos or land cover data, and hence need field
observation or other data sources, as shown in Table 7. Proportion or percentage
of area with water could be estimated using both orthophotos, landscape
photos (in view) and land cover data. The number of viewpoints could be
calculated through visibility analysis using orthophotos or land cover data
together with terrain data. Viewpoints could also be estimated through field
observations.

Indicators of Visual Scale

Visual scale describes landscape rooms/perceptual units in relation to their size,
shape and diversity, and the degree of openness in the landscape. According to
Appleton’s prospect-refuge theory (Appleton, 1975), human beings, with the role
of both predator and prey, have through evolution adapted to landscapes offering
both prospect (the ability to get overview and hunting opportunity) and refuge (the
ability to hide and escape from predators). The prospect-refuge theory is related to
the habitat theory which links aesthetic pleasure to fulfilment of biological needs.
For assessing visual scale two groups of indicators have been suggested in the
literature:

1. Open Area, which focuses on the proportion and the size of open space in the
landscape. This could be measured through:

. Proportion of open land (Palmer, 2004; Weinstoerffer & Girardin, 2000)

. Viewshed size (De la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; Germino et al., 2001; Gulinck
et al., 2001; Palmer & Lankhorst, 1998; Vining et al., 1984)
. Depth of view (Germino et al., 2001; Gulinck et al., 2001)

2. Obstruction of the View referring to objects that are seen as blocking the view.

. Density of obstructing objects (Palmer & Lankhorst, 1998; Weinstoerffer &

Girardin, 2000)
. Degree of visual penetration of vegetation (Weinstoerffer & Girardin, 2000)
 100
Å. Ode et al.

Table 7. Imageability—suggested indicators and application using different data sources

Data Source
Concept
Imageability Landscape photos Orthophotos Land cover data Field observations
1. Spectacular, unique and iconic elements
. Density of spectacular, Density in view Density
unique or iconic built
features
. Density of landmark Density in view Density
. Proportion of water % of water in view % of water % of water Proportion of water
. Density of historical Density in view Density
elements
2. Viewpoints
. Density of viewpoints Density of viewpoints Density of viewpoints Density of viewpoints
through visibility analysis through visibility analysis
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 101

Several indicators are proposed for assessing openness and are applicable for all four
datasets (see Table 8). For the analysis of viewshed a terrain model is necessary
for both either orthophotos or land cover data. To assess the obstruction of the view,
we identified no indicators using land cover, while density of obstructing objects
could be assessed using orthophotos, landscape photos (in view) and field
observations.

Indicators of Naturalness
Naturalness describes the perceived closeness to a preconceived natural state. The
Biophilia hypothesis of Kellert and Wilson (1993) states the importance of
naturalness as man’s biological need to affiliate with nature. This is defined as
‘‘people’s innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes’’. Biophilia is
believed to have developed through evolutionary history as a consequence of its
functional significance. Environmental psychologists see naturalness as an important
aspect of restorative environments, which are environments enhancing recovery of
mental energies and effectiveness (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Hartig et al., 2003).
Indicators of naturalness could be divided into three types.

1. Naturalness of Vegetation focuses on the quality of the present vegetation in

relation to its perceived naturalness. To indicate this, two types of indicators have
been suggested in the literature:

. Percentage of natural vegetation (Arriaza et al., 2004; Ayad, 2005; Brabyn,

2005; Palmer, 2004; Schüpbach, 2002)
. Level of vegetation succession (Palmer, 2004, Schüpbach, 2002; van Mansvelt
& Kuiper, 1999)
. Shape of vegetation (e.g. Palmer, 2004; van Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999)

2. Pattern in the Landscape, as perceived as natural or not. This could be estimated

using:

. Fractal indices (Hagerhall et al., 2004; Antrop & Van Eetvelde, 2000)
. Fragmentation indices (Taylor, 2002)

3. Water in the landscape is often used as an indication of naturalness.

. Proportion of water in the landscape (Palmer, 2004; van Mansvelt & Kuiper,
1999)

The estimation of naturalness of vegetation or stages of succession using

orthophotos or land cover data relies on a reclassification of vegetation (see
Table 9). Proportions of the landscape with perceived naturalness can then be
estimated. Level of vegetation intactness needs field observation or landscape photos
for its estimation. Edge shape can be interpreted in terms of naturalness using
landscape photos or field observations, while for land cover data or orthophotos a
range of different indices are available. For estimating pattern in the landscape in
 102

Table 8. Visual scale—suggested indicators and application using different data sources
Å. Ode et al.

Data source
Concept
Visual scale Landscape photos Orthophotos Land cover data Field observations
1. Open area
. Proportion of open land % of open land % of open land % of open land Proportion of open land
. Viewshed size Size of viewshed Size of viewshed
. Viewshed shape Classification of view Shape index of Shape index of Classification of
shape (1 – 3)a viewshed viewshed view shape (1 – 3)a
. Depth/Breadth of view Estimation of depth of Length of radius Length of radius Estimation of depth
view (1 – 3)b of view of view of view (1 – 3)b
2. Obstruction of the view
. Density of obstructing Density of obstructing Density of obstructing Density of obstructing objects
objects objects objects
. Degree of visual penetration Proportion of vegetation Proportion of vegetation
of vegetation with different levels of with different levels of
visual penetration (1 – 4)c visual penetration (1 – 4)c
a
e.g. 1 ¼ one large open area; 2 ¼ split open area; 3 ¼ patchy open area.
b
e.g. 1 ¼ short; 2 ¼ medium; 3 ¼ long.
c
e.g. 1 ¼ blocked; 2 ¼ dense; 3 ¼ semi-open; 4 ¼ open.
Table 9. Naturalness—suggested indicators and application using different data sources

Data source
Concept Landscape
Naturalness photographs Orthophotos Land cover data Field observations
1. Naturalness of vegetation
. Proportion of % of natural % of natural vegetation % of natural vegetation Proportion of natural
natural vegetation vegetation in vegetation
the view
. Level of succession % of vegetation in % of vegetation in % of vegetation in Proportion of vegetation
different stage different stage different stage in different stage
(0 – 3) of successiona (0 – 3) of successiona (0 – 3) of successiona (0 – 3) of successiona
. Shape of edges Interpretation of Shape indicesc Shape indicesc Interpretation of
edge typesb edge typesb
2. Pattern in the landscape
. Fractality Fractal indicesc Fractal indicesc
. Fragmentation Fragmentation indicesc Fragmentation indicesc
3. Water
. Proportion of water % of water in the view % of water % of water Proportion of water
a
e.g. 0 ¼ no succession; 1 ¼ primary succession; 2 ¼ intermediate succession; 3 ¼ climax.
b
e.g. geometrical, intermediate complex shapes; complex shapes.
c
A range of diversity, evenness, edge density, aggregation, shape and size distribution indices are found within landscape metric software such as
FRAGSTAT (McGarigal et al., 2002) and IAN (DeZonia & Mladenoff, 2004) developed within landscape ecology.
Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators
103
104 Å. Ode et al.

relation to its fractality, McGarigal et al. (2002) present several indices that could be
used.

Indicators of Historicity
Historicity describes the degree of historical continuity and richness present in the
landscape. Historical continuity is reflected by the visual presence of different time
layers, while historical richness focuses on the amount and diversity of cultural
elements. The importance of historic landscapes and landscape heritage has been
stressed by several researchers (Lowenthal, 1979, 1985; Fairclough et al., 1999).
Historical association is also considered as important for the appreciation of scenery
in Tuan’s theory of Topophilia (1974). Tuan focuses on the cultural dimension of
preference. Indicators of historicity describe both the time depth present in the
landscape, the historical richness and their impact in the landscape. Within the
literature, three groups of indicators have been identified.

1. Vegetation with Continuity. This could be described as:

. Proportion of landscape with long vegetation continuity (Jessel, 2006)

. Proportion of landscape with traditional land use (Jessel, 2006; Gulinck et al.,
2001)

2. Organization of Landscape Attributes as described through:

. Field size (Fairclough et al., 2002; Darlington, 2002)

. Field shape (Fairclough et al., 2002; Darlington, 2002)
. Spatial arrangement of vegetation (Kuiper, 2000)

3. Landscape Elements, focusing on the presence of historical features in the

landscape. This could be described with:

. Density of cultural elements (Van Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999)

. Shape of line features (Darlington, 2002; Fairclough et al., 2002)

In order to apply these indicators we need to establish what a traditional landscape

would have contained with regards to land use patterns and cultural elements. This
could then be used both to identify areas and elements but also to compare with
shape, size and aggregation indices (see Table 10). Field observations and landscape
photos will focus on the presence or absence of landscape elements, while for the
land cover data and orthophotos a range of indices based on McGarigal et al. (2002)
have been suggested in addition to the proportion of the landscape with traditional
land use and vegetation continuity.

Indicators of Ephemera
Ephemera refer to landscape changes related to season or weather. Within
restorative environments, there is a fascination factor, where so-called soft
Table 10. Historicity—suggested indicators and application using different data sources

Data source
Concept
Historicity Landscape photos Orthophotos Land cover data Field observations
1. Vegetation with continuity
. Proportion of landscape % of view with % of area with Proportion of area
with continuity of land cover continuity of continuity of with continuity
land cover land cover of land cover
. Proportion of landscape % of view with % of area with % of area with Proportion of area
with traditional land use traditional land use traditional land use traditional land use with traditional
land use
2. Organization of landscape attributes
. Field size Presence of small fields Size indicesa Size indicesa Presence of small fields
. Field shape Presence of traditional Shape indicesa Shape indicesa Presence of traditional
field shapes field shapes
. Spatial arrangement Presence of traditional Aggregation indicesa Aggregation indicesa Presence of traditional
of vegetation spatial arrangement spatial arrangement
3. Landscape elements
. Density of cultural elements Density of cultural Density of cultural Density of cultural
elements elements elements
. Shape of linear features Shape indicesa Presence of traditional
shapes
a
A range of size, shape and aggregation indices are found within landscape metric software such as FRAGSTAT (McGarigal et al., 2002) and IAN
(DeZonia & Mladenoff, 2004) developed within landscape ecology.
Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators
105
106 Å. Ode et al.

fascination (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) has been illustrated by many examples of
changes in weather or season. These features, according to Kaplan and Kaplan
(1989), enhance the ‘being away’ aspect of landscape experience. Indicators of
ephemera describe seasonal and weather changes per area, frequency of changes and
the magnitude of change. Indicators identified in the literature can be divided into
three groups.

1. Season-bound Activities, which focuses on events taking place in the landscape in

relation to season. These are:

. Farming activities with seasonal patterns such as harvest (Brassley, 1998;

Jessel, 2006; van Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999)
. Presence of animals (Jessel, 2006; Litton, 1968, 1972)

2. Landscape Attributes with Seasonal Change which refers both to natural

vegetation and agricultural land. Suggested indicators are:

. Seasonal variation in natural vegetation (Ahas et al., 2005; Hendriks et al.,

2000; Brassley, 1998; van Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999)
. Seasonal variation in crops and fields (Brassley, 1998; Jessel, 2006; van
Mansvelt & Kuiper, 1999)
. Water with seasonal change (Morgan, 1999)

3. Landscape Attributes with Weather Characteristics, focuses on elements that are

prone to changes in relation to meteorological changes. Indicators found in the
literature are:

. Water (e.g. Morgan, 1999; Litton, 1968, 1972)

A large number of the indicators rely (regardless of dataset used) on a

classification of natural vegetation and farming activities into those with seasonal
changes or not, as seen in Table 11. Land cover data are often not detailed enough to
make this distinction in relation to agricultural land and farming activities, and
hence orthophotos, landscape photos or field observations are needed.

Discussion
Choosing Indicators—Usefulness of a Limited Set
The experience of the countryside is holistic and the overall impression of a view is
what people observe as visual character. This calls for great care in the application of
indicators. In order to capture landscape visual character the selection of indicators
requires careful consideration. A wide range of visual indicators are available for
assessing landscape change and its visual consequences. In most landscape
assessment and monitoring projects it will be unnecessary if not impossible to apply
all these indicators. We suggest an approach to indicator selection based on ‘filters’.
Table 11. Ephemera—suggested indicators and application using different data sources

Data source
Concept
Ephemera Landscape photos Orthophotos Land cover data Field observations
1. Season-bound activities
. Presence of animals Seasonal presence of animals Seasonal presence of animals
. Presence of cyclical % of land cover with % of land cover Proportion of land cover
farming activities cyclical farming with cyclical with cyclical farming
activities in view farming activities activities
2. Landscape attributes with seasonal change
. Seasonal variation in % of area with seasonal % of area with % of area with Proportion of area with
natural vegetation changing vegetation seasonal changing seasonal changing seasonal changing
in view vegetation land cover vegetation
. Seasonal variation % of agricultural land % of agricultural Proportion of agricultural
on agricultural land with seasonal variation land with land with seasonal
in view seasonal variation variation
. Water with seasonal change % of water in view % of water % of water Proportion of water
3. Landscape attributes with weather characteristics
. Presence of water % of water in view % of water % of water Proportion of water
Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators
107
108 Å. Ode et al.

The ‘filters’ are criteria that indicator application should meet. The ‘filtering’ will
identify a suitable set of visual indicators for application within a specific project or
landscape context.
The filter approach is useful for its ability to make the process of indicator
selection transparent. The approach allows for changes in the criteria (filters) for
the selection of indicators should the context or aim of assessment change. If the
aim is to assess the totality of the visual character of a landscape, this will require
an extensive set of indicators covering all visual aspects. Sometimes, a landscape
is monitored with regards to one or a few visual aspects, for example, visual
scale or disturbance. In such projects an indicator set restricted to just analysing
these aspects might suffice. The filters will help to ensure the appropriate selection
of indicators to be applied in specific landscape assessment and monitoring
projects.
We suggest the following six initial filters for visual indicator selection (see
Figure 1). The first filter, clear theoretical base, represents a criterion that we believe
should apply for all indicators and projects. This implies that indicators should be
theory driven rather than data driven, and is an expression of the need to know what
we want indicators to indicate. Second, we suggest that visual indicators should be
transferable between landscapes, meaning that they should not be landscape type
specific. This criterion makes possible comparisons between landscapes. Third, visual
indicators should be quantifiable, so that they can be measured and compared.
Fourth, visual indicators should be mappable, meaning that they should be possible
to locate spatially and express through maps. Filters 2 – 4 are suggested to make the
use of indicators transparent and repeatable. All indicators presented in our
framework fulfil the criteria of these first four filters.
Finally, we suggest two filters dependent on project features. First, relevance,
this is a filter for indicator selection that is project and context sensitive.
Indicators will be selected as a consequence of the particular interests involved,
points of focus, stakeholder interests, etc. The relevance filter will be particularly
important in relation to public participation and landscape planning or impact
assessment. The relevance filter will determine how narrow the set of indicators
can be in terms of encompassing a few or many visual concepts. Finally, a filter
in the selection of indicators will always be data availability. This will depend on
project resources, and on the visual aspects to be assessed or monitored in the
project. Some concepts have a wider range of indicators to choose from than
others, for example, complexity has a vast range of possible indicators while
coherence has only a few. Some indicators are easy to apply because their data
are readily available through land cover data bases. Others, such as stewardship
indicators, require additional effort, for example, field surveys. Scarcity of data
creates the danger of making the process of visual analysis data driven rather
than theory driven. Lack of data could limit the possibility of getting a valid
expression of landscape character. It is crucial to keep the focus on what we want
indicators to indicate, and identifying the data required to make this possible. To
obtain a valid expression of landscape character through the use of indicators we
suggest using several data sources, for example, land cover data, orthophotos,
landscape photos and field observations, thus widening the set of potentially
applicable indicators.
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 109

Figure 1. Selection of indicators through suggested filters.

Concept Interrelationships
Although the visual concepts and their visual indicators are presented independently,
they are interrelated, and landscape changes altering indicator values related to one
concept may cause an increase or decrease in indicator values of another concept.
This needs careful consideration in application and interpretation. Figure 2 shows a
map of the visual concepts, and how some are closely related while others could be
seen as opposites. An example of closely linked and sometimes overlapping concepts
is historicity and imageability, as elements creating strong imageability are often, but
not always, cultural elements. Another example are the concepts of complexity and
naturalness, where complexity is used as a description of naturalness (e.g. Hagerhall
et al., 2004; Purcell & Lamb, 1998). On the other hand, some concepts are opposites,
such as naturalness and stewardship, when stewardship decreases naturalness
increases and vice versa. This relationship between naturalness and stewardship has
been identified by, for example, Nassauer (1995), and signs of abandonment
(increasing naturalness) are used as indicators of decreasing stewardship.
Other opposing concepts are coherence and disturbance, where the absence of
disturbance has been used as an indicator of disturbance (van Mansvelt & Kuiper,
 110
Å. Ode et al.

Figure 2. Map of concepts where dotted lines represent dependencies between the concepts, e.g. perceived disturbance is dependent on the visibility
of the disturbing element, which is determined by the visual scale of the landscapes.
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 111

1999). Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) discussed the trade-offs between coherence and
complexity, stating that an overly complex landscape can be considered messy or
lacking coherence. According to Kaplan and Kaplan, the relationship between the
two concepts is however not straightforwardly opposed, as a scene can also be high
in complexity and coherence at the same time, it being rich but organized. The map
in Figure 2 should be seen as a suggestion of what the interrelationships of the
concepts of visual character might look like. The visual indicators do further show a
relationship between each other and to other concepts. Visual scale is a concept that
influences several indicators including both disturbance (‘area perceived as
disturbed’) and imageability (‘density of viewpoints’).
When using visual indicators for analysing character, few studies have focused on
the nature of the relationship. Studies related to preference research have found that
the relationship between indicators and preference is not necessarily a linear
relationship (e.g. Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). This is probably also the case for the
relationship between character and indicators, where the indicator values are not
reflected in changes of character or remain unnoticed until a threshold value is
passed. Identifying the nature of the relationship between character and indicator
values is an important area for further studies.

Topography and Water

The concept – indicator framework developed in this study suggests that certain
landscape elements and features are indicators of landscape character as expressed
through several of the visual concepts. One such element is water, which is believed
to contribute to naturalness, coherence, imageability and ephemera. Topography is
another feature of importance within several of the concepts, for example,
complexity (landform diversity), visual scale (depth/breadth of view), imageability
(view points) and disturbance (visibility of disturbing elements). The special
importance of both topography and water are also evident in the LCA as developed
for England and Scotland (Swanwick, 2002). In the LCA land form and water are
often used as the key landscape elements for distinguishing different character areas.
The special importance of water and topography for the experience of landscape has
also been evident in preference research (e.g. Arriaza et al., 2004; Brush, 1981;
Nasar & Li, 2004; Wherrett, 2000).

Landscape Type
Though all the presented concepts are important for the formation of landscape
character, there is reason to believe that the relative importance or weighting of the
different concepts is dependent on landscape type (Purcell et al., 2001). When
assessing different landscape types in the Netherlands, de Groot and van den Born
(2003) found examples of landscape type dependency in relation to perceived
naturalness. Gulinck et al. (2001) report a need for local tuning of indicators of
disturbance. What is seen as intrusions in a rural landscape will depend on local
context. This implies that even if indicators should be transferable between
landscapes, one needs to take the local context into account in the interpretation
of indicator values.
112 Å. Ode et al.

Importance of Scale
Visual indicators are sensitive to the choice of landscape scale in visual assessment
(e.g. mapping scale, photo frame) and this relates to all types of media used. The
perceived grain size of a small part of a landscape might easily differ greatly from the
impression given by the same landscape at a larger scale. This requires care in
situations where photographic samples are used to reflect the content of whole
landscapes. When using land cover data or orthophotographs it has been shown that
calculation of landscape metrics (e.g. to capture complexity) is very sensitive to scale
and resolution of the data (Li & Wu, 2004; Lausch & Herzog, 2002). When applying
indicators we recommend the use of a consistent scale within a project in order to
allow for comparison across areas and over time.

Data Sources
Which data source will give the most useful information about a landscape or
landscape feature is dependent on the purpose of the study. For preference studies
assessing general preferences for a given landscape feature, photographs are valid,
practical and frequently used representations of landscapes (Trent et al., 1987;
Wherrett, 1998). In such studies, it is not the sites per se, but the character they
represent that is being rated. Indicator values in the landscapes represented can be
manipulated in the photographs to allow assessment of the selected landscape
feature and gain control of the photo content. For scenario assessment photos can
also be useful representations of, for example, planned developments.
For monitoring and assessing the visual character of particular landscapes,
photographs have limitations as a data source. It is difficult to capture the totality of
a real landscape using photographs as discussed by Palmer and Hoffman (2001).
GIS-based indicators are very common in visual landscape assessment (e.g. Germino
et al., 2001; Gulinck et al., 1999; Lynch & Gimblett, 1992). Using land cover data it
is possible to measure changes in visual indicators taking whole landscapes into
account. However, land cover data cannot directly represent what people see, and
there is a danger of misinterpreting the effect of changes in land cover on visible
landscape character.
The value of land cover data for assessing different visual aspects depends on the
level of detail in the classifications. Assessments of stewardship, for example, require
detailed information on succession and management type. Orthophotos can be
valuable supplements to land cover maps, and often add detail of smaller visual
features, particularly linear and point features. Field observations and landscape
photos can often provide greater detail in the status or presence of particular
features, but can sometimes be difficult to link the whole landscape area in an
accurate measure. In many studies a combined approach using several data sources
will be the most appropriate (see e.g. Palmer & Lankhorst, 1998).

Links between Indicators and Theory

As can be seen from the display of different indicators in the previous sections we
have identified a wide range of visual indicators. The nature of these indicators
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 113

currently used to describe visual character varies greatly. Some have strong links
to landscape aesthetic theory (e.g. Nassauer’s cues of stewardship, 1995, 1997;
visual disturbance: Iverson, 1985; Gulink et al., 2001; perceived natural vegetation:
Palmer, 2004), while others have been borrowed and applied directly from landscape
ecology (e.g. McGarigal et al., 2002). Ecology indicators are often readily available
and easily applicable with landscape metrics software, for example, FRAGSTAT
(McGarigal et al., 2002) and IAN (DeZonia & Mladenoff, 2004). When applying
such indicators to assess visual character we suggest caution in making sure that the
indicators chosen are actually indicating visual character. For some of the
FRAGSTAT and IAN indicators presented in the earlier sections, further research
is needed to determine their relevance in visual assessment. Jessel (2006) discussed
the relevance in visual assessment of diversity indicators, pointing to the weak link
between measure and character and demanding further empirical verification of such
links.

Conclusion
Our aim was to present a framework for visual landscape assessment able to capture
the visual character of a landscape. We have identified a wide range of indicators
covering different aspects of the visual landscape. The availability and applicability
of the different indicators, however, vary greatly between different theoretical
concepts in the framework. Some have abundant indicators with weaker links to
theory, while others have few available indicators, but stronger links to theory. The
indicators included in this paper have all been suggested in the literature to be
relevant in visual landscape assessment. However, we suggest that caution is needed
to ensure that these indicators actually indicate visual character.
We believe that further research is needed to establish stronger links between
visual indicators and landscape aesthetic theory. This research should include testing
of the applicability of visual indicators and their sensitivity in expressing visual
changes, that is, changes in indicator values will have a visual impact, and that visual
changes imply changes in the indicator values. Despite these limitations we believe
this framework is a useful approach to visual landscape character assessment.

Acknowledgements
This work has been funded by the EU-project VisuLands, QLRT-2001-01017. We
would like to thank our partners in the VisuLands project for valuable input to the
process of writing this paper and analysing visual concepts. We would also like to
acknowledge the two anonymous reviewers whose valuable comments have helped
us in the preparation of this paper.

References
Ahas, R., Aasa, A., Silm, S. & Roosaare, J. (2005) Seasonal indicators and seasons of Estonian landscapes,
Landscape Research, 30, pp. 173 – 191.
Antrop, M. & Van Eetvelde, V. (2000) Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: visual image interpretation
and landscape metrics, Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, pp. 43 – 58.
114 Å. Ode et al.

Appleton, J. (1975) The Experience of Landscapes (Chichester: Wiley).

Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J. F., Canas-Madueno, J. A. & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004) Assessing the visual
quality of rural landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, pp. 115 – 125.
Ayad, Y. M. (2005) Remote sensing and GIS in modelling visual landscape change: a case study of the
north-western arid coast of Egypt, Landscape and Urban Planning, 73, pp. 307 – 325.
Bell, S. (1999) Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process (London: Spon).
Brabyn, L. (2005) Solutions for characterising natural landscapes in New Zealand using geographical
information systems, Journal of Environmental Management, 76, pp. 23 – 34.
Brassley, P. (1998) On the unrecognized significance of the ephemeral landscape, Landscape Research, 23,
pp. 119 – 132.
Brush, R. O. (1981) Landform and scenic preferences: A research note. Landscape and Planning, 8, pp.
301 – 306.
Coeterier, J. F. (2002) Lay people’s evaluation of historic sites, Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, pp.
111 – 123.
Council of Europe (2000) Official text of the European Landscape Convention. Available online at: [http://
www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/Landscape/], accessed 4 December 2007.
Countryside Council for Wales (2006) LANDMAP Information System, available online at:
[www.landmap.ccw.gov.uk/files/CCW_FinalPDFEng.pdf], accessed 27 June 2007.
Darlington, J. (2002) Mapping Lancashire’s historic landscape: the Lancashire Historic
Landscape Characterisation programme, in: G. Fairclough & S. Rippon (Eds) Europe’s Cultural
Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change, pp. 97 – 105 (Exeter: Short Run Press).
de Groot, W. T. & van der Born, R. J. G. (2003) Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: an
exploration in The Netherlands, Landscape and Urban Planning, 63, pp. 127 – 138.
de la Fuente de Val, G., 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, pp. 393 – 407.
DeZonia, B. & Mladenoff, D. J. (2004) IAN 1.0.15, Computer software program produced by the
authors at the Department of Forest Ecology & Management, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Available online at: [http://landscape.forest.wisc.edu/projects/ian/], accessed 4 December 2007.
Dramstad, W. & Sogge, C. (Eds) (2003) Agricultural impacts on landscapes: Developing indicators for
policy analysis. NIJOS/OECD Expert Meeting, Agricultural Indicators, Oslo.
Dramstad, W. E., Fry, G., Fjellstad, W. J., Skar, B., Helliksen, W., Sollund, M. L. B., Tveit, M. S.,
Geelmuyden, A. K. & Framstad, E. (2001) Integrating landscape-based values—Norwegian monitoring
of agricultural landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, pp. 257 – 268.
Fairclough, G., Lambrick, G. & Hopkins, D. (2002) Historic landscape characterisation in England
and a Hampshire case study, in: G. Fairclough & S. Rippon (Eds) Europe’s Cultural Landscape:
Archaeologists and the Management of Change, pp. 69 – 83 (Exeter: Short Run Press).
Fairclough, G., Lambrick, G. & McNab, A. (Eds) (1999) Yesterday’s World, Tomorrow’s Landscape. The
English Heritage Historic Landscape Project 1992 – 94 (London: English Heritage).
Fjellstad, W. J., Dramstad, W. E., Strand, G. H. & Fry, G. L. A. (2001) Heterogeneity as a
measure of spatial pattern for monitoring agricultural landscapes, Norwegian Journal of Geography, 55,
pp. 71 – 76.
Germino, M. J., Reiners, W. A., Blasko, B. J., McLeod, D. & Bastian, C. T. (2001) Estimating
visual properties of Rocky Mountain landscapes using GIS, Landscape and Urban Planning, 53, pp. 71 –
83.
Giles, R. H. & Trani, M. K. (1999) Key elements of landscape pattern measures, Environmental
Management, 23, pp. 477 – 481.
Gobster, P. H. (2001) Visions of nature: conflict and compatibility in urban park restoration, Landscape
and Urban Planning, 56, pp. 35 – 51.
Green, R. (1999) Meaning and form in community perception of town character, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 19, pp. 311 – 329.
Green, D. G., Klomp, N., Rimmington, G. & Sadedin, S. (2007) Complexity in Landscape Ecology
(Dordrecht: Springer).
Gulinck, H., Dufourmont, H. & Stas, I. (1999) Approach to landscape character using satellite imagery
and spatial analysis tools, in: M. B. Usher (Ed.) Landscape Character: Perspectives on Management and
Change, pp. 127 – 134 (Edinburgh: The Stationery Office).
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 115

Gulinck, G., Múgica, M., de Lucio, J. V. & Atauri, J. A. (2001) A framework for comparative landscape
analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Madrid region (Spain),
Landscape and Urban Planning, 55, pp. 257 – 270.
Hagerhall, C. M., Purcell, T. & Taylor, R. (2004) Fractal dimension of landscape
silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24,
pp. 247 – 255.
Hammitt, W. E., Patterson, M. E. & Noe, F. P. (1994) Identifying and predicting visual
preference of Southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas, Landscape and Urban Planning, 29, pp.
171 – 183.
Hands, D. E. & Brown, R. D. (2002) Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites,
Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, pp. 57 – 70.
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S. & Gärling, T. (2003) Tracking restoration in natural
and urban field settings, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, pp. 109 – 123.
Hendriks, K., Stobbelaar, D. J. & Van Mansvelt, J. D. (2000) The appearance of agriculture. An
assessment of the quality of landscape of both organic and conventional horticultural farms in West
Friesland, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 77, pp. 157 – 175.
Hopkinson, R. G. (1971) The quantitative assessment of visual intrusion, Journal of the Town Planning
Institute, 57, pp. 445 – 449.
Hulshoff, R. M. (1995) Landscape indexes describing a Dutch landscape, Landscape Ecology, 10, pp. 101 –
111.
Hunziker, M. & Kienast, F. (1999) Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty: a
prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment, Landscape Ecology, 14, pp. 161 – 176.
Iverson, W. D. (1985) And that’s about the size of it: visual magnitude as a measurement of the physical
landscape, Landscape Journal, 4, pp. 14 – 22.
Jessel, B. (2006) Elements, characteristics and character: information functions of landscapes in terms of
indicators, Ecological Indicators, 6, pp. 153 – 167.
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989) The Experience of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1982) Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World (New
York: Praeger).
Kellert, S. R. (1996) The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society (Washington, DC:
Shearwater Books).
Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O. (1993) The Biophilia Hypothesis (Washington, DC: Island Press/Shearwater
Books).
Kuiper, J. (2000) A checklist approach to evaluate the contribution of organic farms to landscape quality,
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 77, pp. 143 – 156.
Länsstyrelsen i Skåne (2006) Det Skånska landsbygdsprogrammet (Malmö: Länsstyrelsen i Skåne).
Laurie, I. C. (1975) Aesthetic factors in visual evolution, in: E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush & J. G. Fabos (Eds)
Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources, pp. 103 – 117 (Stroudsborg: Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross).
Lausch, A. & Herzog, F. (2002) Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change:
issues of scale, resolution and interpretability, Ecological Indicators, 2, pp. 3 – 15.
Li, H. & Wu, J. (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices, Landscape Ecology, 19, pp. 389 – 399.
Litton, R. B. (1968) Forest landscape description and inventories: a basis for land planning and design,
USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-49, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Forest Service US Department of Agriculture, Berkeley, CA.
Litton, R. B. (1972) Aesthetic dimensions of the landscape, in: J. V. Krutilla (Ed.) Natural Environments:
Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis, pp. 262 – 291 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press).
Litton, R. B., Sorensen, J. & Beatty, R. A. (1974) Water and Landscape: An Aesthetic Overview of the Role
of Water in the Landscape (New York: Water Information Center).
Lowenthal, D. (1979) Age and artefact, in: D. W. Meining (Ed.) The Interpretation of Ordinary
Landscapes, Geographical Essays, pp. 103 – 128 (New York: Oxford University Press).
Lowenthal, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Lynch, J. A. & Gimblett, R. H. (1992) Perceptual values in the cultural landscape: a spatial model for
assessing and mapping perceived mystery in rural environments, Journal of Computers, Environment and
Urban Systems, 16, pp. 453 – 471.
116 Å. Ode et al.

Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press & Harvard University Press).
McGarigal, K., Cushman, S. A., Neel, M. C. & Ene, E. (2002) FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis
Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University
of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available online at: [www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/
fragstats.html], accessed 4 December 2007.
Miljøministeriet (2007) Vejledning om landskabet i kommuneplanlægningen (Copenhagen: Miljøministeriet,
Skov og Naturstyrelsen).
Morgan, R. (1999) Some factors affecting coastal landscape aesthetic quality assessment, Landscape
Research, 24, pp. 167 – 184.
Nasar, J. L. & Li, M. (2004) Landscape mirror: the attractiveness of reflecting water, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 66, pp. 233 – 238.
Nassauer, J. I. (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frames, Landscape Journal, 14, pp. 161 – 170.
Nassauer, J. I. (1997) Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology, in: J. I. Nassauer (Ed.)
Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology, pp. 67 – 83 (Washington, DC: Island Press).
Palmer, J. F. (2004) Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis,
Massachusetts, Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, pp. 201 – 218.
Palmer, J. F. & Hoffman, R. E. (2001) Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape
assessments, Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, pp. 149 – 161.
Palmer, J. F. & Lankhorst, J. R. K. (1998) Evaluating visible spatial diversity in the landscape, Landscape
and Urban Planning, 43, pp. 65 – 78.
Pearson, D. M. (2002) The application of local measures of spatial autocorrelation for describing pattern
in north Australian landscapes, Journal of Environmental Management, 64, pp. 85 – 95.
Purcell, A. T. & Lamb, R. J. (1998) Preference and naturalness: an ecological approach, Landscape and
Urban Planning, 42, pp. 57 – 66.
Purcell, T., Peron, E. & Berto, R. (2001) Why do preferences differ between scene types, Environment and
Behaviour, 33, pp. 93 – 106.
Schüpbach, B. (2002) Methods for indicators to assess landscape aesthetic, in: W. Dramstad & C. Sogge
(Eds) Agricultural impacts on landscapes: developing indicators for policy analysis, NIJOS/OECD
Expert Meeting, Agricultural Indicators, pp. 270 – 281, Oslo.
Sheppard, S. R. J. (2001) Beyond Visual Resource Management: Emerging Theories of an Ecological
Aesthetic and Visible Stewardship. Forests and Landscapes—Linking Ecology, Sustainability and
Aesthetics, IUFRO Research Series No. 6, pp. 149 – 172 (Wallingford: CABI Publishing).
Swanwick, C. (2002) Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland (London: The
Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage).
Taylor, P. D. (2002) Fragmentation and cultural landscapes: tightening the relationship between human
beings and the environment, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, pp. 93 – 99.
Trent, R. B., Neumann, E. & Kvashny, A. (1987) Presentation mode and question format artifacts in
visual assessment research, Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, pp. 225 – 235.
Tveit, M., Ode, Å. & Fry, G. (2006) Key visual concepts in a framework for analyzing visual landscape
character, Landscape Research, 31, pp. 229 – 255.
Tuan, Y. (1974) Topophilia (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Ulrich, R. S. (1979) Visual landscapes and psychological well-being, Landscape Research, 4, pp. 14 – 23.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery, Science, 224, pp. 420 – 421.
Van den Berg, A. E., Vlek, C. A. J. & Coeterier, J. F. (1998) Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation
of nature development plans: a multi-level approach, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18,
pp. 141–157.
van Mansvelt, J. D. & Kuiper, J. (1999) Criteria for the humanity realm: psychology and physiognomy
and cultural heritage, in: D. van Mansvelt & M. J. van der Lubbe (Eds) Checklist for Sustainable
Landscape Management, pp. 116 – 134 (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science).
Vining, J., Daniel, T. C. & Schroeder, H. W. (1984) Predicting scenic values in forested residential
landscapes, Journal of Leisure Research, 16, pp. 124 – 135.
Wascher, D. M. (Ed.) (2005) European Landscape Character Areas: typologies, cartography
and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes. Final project report as deliverable from
the EUs Accompanying Measure project European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative
(ELCAI).
 Capturing Landscape Visual Character Using Indicators 117

Weinstoerffer, J. & Girardin, P. (2000) Assessment of the contribution of land use pattern and intensity to
landscape quality: use of a landscape indicator, Ecological Modelling, 130, pp. 95 – 109.
Wherrett, J. R. (1998) Natural landscape scenic preference: techniques for evaluation and simulation,
unpublished PhD thesis, Robert Gordon University and Macaulay Land Use Research Institute,
Aberdeen, Scotland.
Wherrett, J. R. (2000) Creating landscape preference models using internet survey techniques, Landscape
Research, 25, pp. 79 – 96.