Aplinkos tyrimai, inžinerija ir vadyba, 2004.Nr.3(29), P.

51-60 ISSN 1392-1649

Environmental research, engineering and management, 2004.No.3(29), P.51-60

Some Methodical Aspects of Landscape Visual Quality

Preferences Analysis

Jūratė Kamičaitytė-Virbašienė, Rolandas Janušaitis

Kaunas University of Technology

(received in March 2004, accepted in October, 2004)

The necessity of the protection and enhance of landscape visual quality according to anthropoecological
paradigm of environmental design is one of the main factors while accepting environmental design decisions
and the conception of landscape visual quality that encompasses a subjective and objective dimension. Today,
, the main attention while regulating landscape visual quality is paid to the material object, which is
perceived, i.e. the landscape, and not enough attention is paid to the perceiver, i.e. the society and its
preferences, which is the subjective measure of landscape visual quality. In order to solve this problem,
foreign and Lithuanian theoretical and practical works in the field of social preferences analysis are reviewed
in the article. The results of the reconnaissance analysis of social preferences in Lithuania and the possibilities
of the methodical basis development are described. The procedure of the opinion of experts integration and
laity, as one aspect of the methodical basis improvement, is elaborated.
Keywords: landscape visual quality, social preferences, complex methods of landscape evaluation,
semantic differential, multicriteria analysis.

1. Introduction

The most general task of environmental design is
a spatial organization of people activity and
environment regulation, seeking to coordinate social,
economical, and ecological interests of territory use
and to create a harmonious cultural landscape [1].
Living environment is a very wide conception, which
encompasizing both physical and spiritual
environment. The assurance of quality of the living
environment is the problem of national importance.
The physical environment (cleanness of air, water,
and soil) is regulated theoretically by describing it
with objective indicators and national standards
determining the meanings of those indicators. The
spiritual environment encompasses visual
environment and its regulation concerns a lot of
theoretical and practical problems of environmental
design.
Looking from the theoretical point of view, the
necessity of the protection and enhance of landscape
visual quality is one of the environmental design
fundamentals, which is essential while creating the
ecologically stable, ergonomically comfortable,
aesthetically attractive, and semantically meaningful
landscape. However, the necessity of the protection
and enhance of landscape visual quality is not always
considered in the social decisions, which change the
visual environment. The reason of this phenomenon is
unapproved criterions and indicators of landscape
visual quality evaluation, undetermined landscape
visual quality regulation classes with different
objectives of regulation, unprepared effective and
practically applicable methodology of landscape
visual quality analysis, evaluation and regulation.
From the practical point of view, the analysis
and regulation of landscape visual quality is relevant
because of the growth of the communicative
importance of the visual environment to the society
and its integration into relations of the market
economy.
The conception of the visual environment
includes an object as the material environment, and
the subject, according to which the environment is
analysed. The problems of the evaluation and creation
of the visual environment cannot be solved
considering only the environment without a subject –
the society. The society is miscellaneous and there are
 J. Kamičaitytė – Virbašienė, R. Janušaitis
a lot of attitudes to the landscape as a visual
environment. Those attitudes differ according to the
social position, education, profession, etc. These
factors determine evaluation purposes and priorities.
Though, discussing landscape aesthetical visual
characteristics in Lithuania, the main attention is paid
to the material aspect of perception – the landscape,
and not enough attention is paid to the social
preferences, which are the measure of landscape
visual quality. Thereby, on purpose to solve this
problem, it is not enough to find out only objective
indicators of landscape visual quality (by the way, this
field of landscape visual quality regulation has been
studied widely enough [2 – 15]), but it is also very
important to show the importance of landscape visual
quality to the society and social preferences
evaluating landscape visual quality.
Seeking to get the results mentioned above, it is
necessary to prepare an exploratory method.
Therefore, the reconnaissance analysis of Lithuanian
social preferences was performed and the main
question, which is discussed in this article, is the
formulation of the methodical principles of social
preferences research.
2. The review of foreign and Lithuanian
theoretical and practical works in the field of
social preferences analysis
The methodical principles of the research are
formulated with reference to the foreign and
Lithuanian experience in the field of social
preferences analysis theory and practice.
The methods of landscape visual quality analysis
and evaluation are classified variously according to
the conception of the visual environment. There are
two main trends in theoretical and practical works of
landscape visual analysis and evaluation. One of the
trends says that landscape visual quality is
conditioned by the combination and harmony of lines,
forms and colours and not by the characteristics of
separate components of landscape. The other
determines the landscape components condition
landscape visual impact and the comparative weight
[16]. The first trend is related with the undividuality
of landscape visual impact while the other stresses the
importance of separate factors that determine
landscape visual character. However, seeking to solve
the questions of territory planning properly and to
consider subjective and objective aspect considering
public preferences and landscape characteristics, the
most suitable method should have to integrate aspects
of non-structural and structural quantitative and non-
quantitative (comparative) analysis. Those are
complex methods, which are more advanced and
precise and consider the subjective and objective
aspect of landscape evaluation [17 – 19]. The methods
of non-structural analysis have to be used because
any technology of evaluation will reflect the opinions
of landscape evaluators and the relation of those
opinions, as landscape is valuable in regard to people.
The methods of structural analysis explain why a
52
particular evaluated landscape unit has a definite
visual quality, a comparative weight of the separate
landscape components characteristics to that quality is
estimated. Consequently, the structural analysis can
be used to determine preferences while evaluating
different landscape visual types.
According to the Lithuanian scientist P.
Kavaliauskas [20], the semantic potential of the
environment has to be analysed in accordance with
behaviour patterns in the space (the theory of K.
Lynch, 1960) or distribution of associative attributes.
The American scientist Ch. Osgood (1957) developed
the latter methodical basis of the research, i.e.
semantic differential analysis. The factor analysis of
the living environment (or other construct) verbal
descriptions (data from semantic differentials) is the
essence of the method [17, 21 – 24]. Verbal
descriptions of the environment are an adjective pair
of words with opposite meanings, which are used to
evaluate the concordance of the environmental view
(construct) with suggested characteristics (concepts),
which make factors as the aspects of the
environmental quality evaluation. These researches
are based on the premise that the environment is
evaluated using a common set of the aspects with
different weights considering the environment
(Oostendorp, Berlyne, 1988) [17, 21]. Ch. Osgood
performed semantic studies of connotative meanings
(good-bad, like-dislike, and etc.) and identified three
basic semantic dimensions that people use for making
judgements on the environmental quality, such as
subjective (assessment of feelings), potency
(capabilities), and activity (functions or usage).
Subsequent research findings suggest that these three
basic dimensions do not generalize the meaning of
environments (Canter, 1969, Horayangkura, 1978,
Ward and Russell, 1981) [17, 21]. The American
geographer S. Kane (1981) [25] applied this method
to determine the most aesthetically attractive
landscapes of Australia using principles of the
structural analysis. The evaluation of landscape view
was measured after summing up average assessments
considering their comparative weight and correlation
with the attractive landscape. He also suggested using
that method to collect data on landscape preferences
of a particular population.
After reviewing the Lithuanian experience in
social preferences analysis evaluating landscape
visual quality, it can be stated that landscape visual
quality was analysed mostly as a recreational resource
of landscape. V. Stauskas, A. Šipaila, G. Daniulaitis,
P. Kavaliauskas and other researchers performed
sociological studies and analysed the reasons of the
choice of a recreational space in 1962 – 1986.
Aesthetical attributes of the environment (beauty of
nature) was one of the reasons [26 – 29]. This factor
occupied the first or the second place among other
factors of the comfort level of recreational conditions
in the mentioned research. That fact shows an
undoubted meaning of landscape visual quality as the
recreational resource. Furthermore, the conception of
environmental beauty was analysed according to
evaluated landscape components. The results of
 Some Methodical Aspects of Landscape Visual Quality Preferences Analysis

public opinion analysis in 1972 showed that a vicinity
is beautiful when there is water (71%), forest (64%),
expressive relief (27%), and structures (13%).
According to the results of the research performed in
1986, the natural landscape visual type is beautiful
considering its structure when there is 52% of water,
47% of relief, 32% of vegetation, 4% of architecture
of buildings. A townscape is beautiful when the
architecture of buildings consists 58%, vegetation –
50%, water – 13%, and relief – 10% [28]. These
results enable to elaborate the objective factors of
landscape visual quality but the evaluation changes
and it is necessary to continue the research in this
field.
Subsequent researches are related with the
tourism development and again analyse landscape
visual quality as the recreational resource [30, 31].
Though, paying attention to the equal value of
sociocultural, ecological factors of quality of the
living environment, and the aesthetical attractiveness
of landscape, evaluating the visual environment social
preferences have to be analysed not only looking to
landscape visual quality as a recreational resource but
also as an everyday environmental qualitative factor
conditioned by the subjective and objective aspect.
3. The method and results of the reconnaissance
analysis of Lithuanian social preferences
evaluating landscape visual quality
According to the review of the foreign and
Lithuanian theoretical and practical works in the field
of social preferences analysis, a research method
based on the principles of non-structural and
structural quantitative (semantic differential) analysis
in order to consider public opinion was chosen. Thus,
it is possible to proceed to the use of complex methods
[32 – 34].
The main tasks of the analysis are:
- to check the methodical principles of the
analysis;
- to determine the levels of landscape visual
quality according to public opinion;
- to determine social preferences conditioned by
subjective indicators of landscape visual quality.
The research confirmed the mentioned premise –
that the method of semantic differential analysis can
be used to determine the landscape visual quality
criterions according to the subjective indicators and
the level of the landscape matching those criteria
(social preferences). Although the method of the
research has to be improved by choosing subjective
indicators, evaluated views, determining social
preferences while evaluating different landscape
visual types, and etc.
In order to get the results of the reconnaissance
analysis, 10 views of various landscape visual types
were chosen according to the degree of culturalizing.
The laity (Table 1) and experts (29 specialists of
architecture from Department of Architecture and
Environmental Design, Kaunas University of
Technology and from Institute of Architecture and
Construction) evaluated those views using a 10 step
scale. Then the views were classified into the
different levels of landscape visual quality (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. The surveyed social group characteristics of Kaunas population (75 respondents)
Characteristics Surveyed, Established according to the model Differences, %
% (general whole), %
According to gender:
Women 53,3 54,9 -1,6
Men 46,7 45,1 1,6
According to age:
20 - 24 years 21,3 22,7 -1,4
25 - 34 years 18,7 24 -5,3
35 - 44 years 28 21,4 6,6
45 - 54 years 18,7 17,9 0,8
55 - 64 years 13,3 14 -0,7
According to education:
Secondary education 30,7 34,2 -3,5
Further education 25,3 22,8 2,5
Uncompleted higher education 20 24 -4
Higher education 24 19 5
According to profession:
Agriculture, forestry, hunting,
fishery 2,7 0,2 2,5
Industry 21,1 27,5 -6,4
Construction 8 5,6 2,4
Education 16 11,5 4,5
Health service 6 9,3 -3,3
Other services 46,2 45,9 0,3

53
 J. Kamičaitytė – Virbašienė, R. Janušaitis

No. 1 No. 5

No. 8 No. 9

laity evaluation experts evaluation

10
8
6
Scores

4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Views

No.10

No. Views
1. Dunes
2. River valley
3. Forest near the lake
4. Farmland
5. Greened homestead near the lake
6. Village with individual silhouette
7. The interior space of village with individual silhouette
8. Typical settlement (suburb)
9. Town with individual silhouette
10. Enterprise

Fig. 1. The evaluation of quality of various landscape visual types

The summarized results of the landscape visual
quality evaluation by non-structural method represent
that the laity prefers the natural and little culturalized
landscape visual type, and the specialists award
higher evaluations to the urbanized environment and
lower evaluations to the natural and little culturalized
landscape visual type. Generally the culturalized and
little urbanized landscape visual type got lower scores
than the natural and little culturalized landscape
visual type. The view of the industrial landscape (the

54
 Some Methodical Aspects of Landscape Visual Quality Preferences Analysis

visual type of urbanized landscape) got the worst the landscape matching the criterions. This premise
evaluations. Therefore, a professional experience has cannot be used in a real research of social preferences
determined preferences of the specialists and laity. seeking to get presentable results.
Seeking to find the reason of such opinion of the The structural quantitative analysis of the
experts and laity, every view was evaluated using a 5- landscape visual quality subjective indicators shows
step scale agreeably matching suggested verbal that the main criterions of the experts and laity
descriptions (Table 2). Verbal descriptions are evaluating landscape visual quality are: vitality,
subjective indicators, which condition criterions of harmony, expressivity, and meaningfulness of the
landscape visual quality evaluation and are landscape structure. Evaluating the natural and little
determined by objective indicators (Fig. 2). The culturalized landscape visual type, the most important
criterions in the reconnaissance analysis were also criterions are: vitality, harmony, and expressivity.
established according to subjective indicators but Evaluating the culturalized, little urbanized, and
hypothetically proposing that subjective indicators are urbanized landscape visual type, the most important
the main conditioning evaluation and their criterions are: complexity, harmony, and
preferential evaluation can be equated to the level of meaningfulness.
Table 2. The way of semantic differential analysis method application in the research of social preferences in Lithuania
Suggested description of the view View No.
–2 –1 0 +1 +2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Uncomfortable comfortable
Boring interesting
Clear mysterious
Chaotic cohesive
Unimpressive impressive
Ordinary original
Disordered ordered
Not associated with history and
culture of the nation
Associated with history and culture of
the nation

Evaluating landscape visual types according to
the suggested verbal descriptions, the opinions of the
experts and laity were also different. After analysing
the evaluation of the first view according to the
suggested verbal descriptions, it was identified that
the view of dunes got high evaluations because of its
expressivity, uniqueness (opinion of the experts and
laity), vitality (opinion of the laity), and
meaningfulness (opinion of the experts) (Fig. 1).
This fact allows to state that the integration of
the opinion of experts and laity while formulating the
methodical principles of social preferences research
are the main problems. Therefore, this is the question
of determination and integration of the criterions
weighting factors.

PSYCOLOGICAL, SOCIOCULTURAL, DEMOGRAPHICAL FACTORS

HUMAN PURPOSES

SUBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE INDICATORS OF

INDICATORS EVALUATION CRITERIONS LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE

COSINESS VITALITY
INTEREST VARIETY QUALITATIVE INDICATORS, PLACE,
MYSTERY COMPLEXITY SIZE, AMOUNT, FORM, LINE, COLOUR,
COHERENCE HARMONY TEXTURE OF LANDSCAPE
IMPRESSIVENESS EXPRESSIVITY COMPONENTS (RELIEF, WATER,
ORIGINALITY UNIQUENESS VEGETATION, ANTHROPOGENICAL
ORDERLINESS FUNCTIONALITY OBJECTS) AND THEIR COMBINATIONS
RELATIONS WITH THE PAST MEANINGFULNESS
AND CULTURE OF THE NATION

LANDSCAPE VISUAL QUALITY PREFERENCES

Fig. 2. The model of the structure of social preferences evaluating landscape visual quality

55
 J. Kamičaitytė – Virbašienė, R. Janušaitis

4. The development of the method of social • the determination of integrated weighting factors
preferences analysis evaluating landscape qintj of criterions considering subjective (expert)
visual quality weighting factors qexpj.

The methodical principles of multicriteria The theoretical weighting factors of the

analysis were used while solving the problem of the
determination of the criterions weighting factors in
the reconnaissance analysis. The determination of the
values and weighting factors of the criterions
according to the results of the experts and laity
evaluation of the view using the structural quantitative
method is the essence of the method. Average values
of the criterions in scores were summed up and
divided by the number that was obtained. Thus the
weighting factor of the criterion was measured
considering the evaluated landscape visual type. The
value of the weighting factor varied from 0 to 1.
Therefore, it was necessary to integrate the
criterions weighting factors considering the
differences of the experts and laity evaluation. In
order to achieve this goal, the method of criterions
weighting factors measurement according to entropy
was tried to apply. K. E. Shenon introduced the
conception of entropy into information theory. That is
a measure of the indeterminacy of a random value
[35, 36].
The main stages of the entropy method used in
the analysis were:
• the normalization of matrix of initial data into
matrix P;
• the determination of entropy level Ej of criterion
values;
• the determination of variation level dj of
criterion values;
• the determination of theoretical weighting factor
qlatj of criterions;
criterions were established using the results of the
laity questioning and the subjective weighting factors,
using the results of the experts questioning. The
integrated weighting factors of the criterions were
calculated by the following formula:
qlatj qexpj , (j=1,n),
qintj = n (1)
Σ qlatj qexpj
j=1
where:
qintj is integrated (determined by experts and laity)
weighting factor of the criterion j;
qexpj – subjective (determined by experts) weighting
factor of the criterion j;
qlatj – theoretical (determined by laity) weighting
factor of the criterion j.
However, after summarizing the results of the
questionings and performing the calculations, a rather
big dispersion of evaluations was noticed. The bigger
the difference in a particular criterion value, the
bigger its weight is. That fact conditioned the
inadequate integrated weighting factors of the
criterions. For example, the evaluation of the view of
dunes according to the suggested verbal descriptions
shows that it has got high evaluations because of its
expressivity and uniqueness (opinion of the experts
and laity), but the integrated weighting factors of the
criterions show that it has got high evaluations
because of its complexity, functionality and
meaningfulness (Fig. 3).

0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
Weighting factors

0.12
0.1
laity evaluation
0.08
experts evaluation
0.06
integrated evaluations
0.04
0.02
0
ty

ity
ity

s
y
y

y
ss

es
lit

on

lit
rie

ne
iv
ex

ln
ta

na
rm

ue
va

s
pl

fu
vi

es

tio
ha

iq
m

ng
pr

nc
un
co

ni
ex

fu

ea
m

Criterions

Fig. 3. The evaluation of the view of dunes according to the criterions conditioned by subjective indicators (integrated
evaluations determined according to entropy)

56
 Some Methodical Aspects of Landscape Visual Quality Preferences Analysis

0.16

0.14

0.12
Weighting factors

0.1

0.08 laity evaluation

experts evaluation
0.06
integrated evaluations
0.04

0.02

0
ty

ity
ity

s
y

ity
ss

es
lit

on
rie

ne
si v
ex

ln
ta

na
rm

ue
va

pl

fu
vi

es

tio
ha

iq
m

ng
pr

nc
un
co

ni
ex

fu

ea
m
Criterions

Fig. 4. The evaluation of the view of dunes according to the criterions conditioned by subjective indicators (integrated
evaluations determined according to the marginal (extreme) meaning of the data)

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.1
Weighting factors

0.08
laity evaluation
0.06 experts evaluation
integrated evaluations
0.04

0.02

0
ty

ity
ity

ss
y

y
ss
lit

on

lit
rie

ne
ne
iv
ex
ta

na
rm

ul
ue
va

s
pl
vi

es

tio

f
ha

iq
m

ng
pr

nc
un
co

ni
ex

fu

ea
m

Criterions

Fig. 5. The evaluation of the view of dunes according to the criterions conditioned by subjective indicators (integrated
evaluations determined according to one most probable evaluation)

The second tested method, was the qlaj – subjective (determined by laity) weighting
determination of criterions weighting factors in factor of the criterion j.
accordance with the marginal (extreme) meaning of
the data [37]. In this instance the following formula The latter method allowed to get the adequate
was used: integrated weighting factors of the criterions. The
advantage of this formula is determined by the
condition that the opinion of experts (specialists of
3 qexpj + 2 qlaj , (j=1,n). (2)
qintj = architecture) is more important than the opinion of
5 laity (coefficient 3) but the opinion of laity also is not
where: ignored (coefficient 2). This aspect allows to state that
qintj – integrated (determined by experts and laity) the described method of criterions weighting factors
weighting factor of the criterion j; measurement could be used in the future as the way
qexpj – subjective (determined by experts) weighting allowing to consider suitably the opinion both of
factor of the criterion j;

57
 J. Kamičaitytė – Virbašienė, R. Janušaitis
experts and laity while evaluating landscape visual
quality (Fig. 4).
The similar results were got after using the
method of criterions weighting factors measurement
in accordance with one most probable evaluation [37]
(Fig. 5). The formula was used:
qexpj + 4qavgj + qlaj , (j=1,n). (3)
qintj =
6 preferences evaluating landscape visual quality
where:
qintj – integrated (determined by experts and laity)
weighting factor of the criterion j;
qexpj – subjective (determined by experts) weighting
factor of the criterion j;
qlaj – subjective (determined by laity) weighting factor
of the criterion j;
qavgj – average (determined by experts and laity)
weighting factor of the criterion j.
However, this method does not show the
influence of the opinion of experts and laity on the
integrated weighting factors of the criterions.
Therefore, the second formula is more suitable to
determine the integrated weighting factors of the
criterions.
The following stage of the research was the
evaluation of social preferences analysis data using
multidimensional methods considering the
representation of respondents and the establishment of
the criterions according to the factor analysis of
subjective indicators. After that, the criterions
weighting factors have to be established and related
with landscape visual quality objective indicators
seeking to get a quantitative value of public opinion
about landscape changes. This action could help to
integrate social preferences into the decisions of
environmental design because there will be particular
values of landscape visual quality objective
indicators. The regression analysis could be used for
this aim but the elaboration of a mathematical
mechanism is the task of the future, which could
condition the development of the methodical trend of
semantic differential research.
5. Conclusions
1. The conception of the visual environment
includes an object i.e. the material environment,
and a subject, i.e. the society, according to
which the environment is analysed. Therefore,
seeking to create landscape of a particular visual
quality by means of environmental design, there
is a need to know not only objective indicators
of landscape visual quality but also the
evaluation of these objective indicators by
society – preferences of experts and laity.
Complex methodical trend of landscape visual
quality evaluation is the most suitable for this
aim.
2. Landscape visual quality mainly was analysed as
a recreational resource in Lithuania.
58
Furthermore, the Lithuanian researchers also
tried to determine objective factors of landscape
visual quality evaluation using the methods of
structural analysis.
3. The method based on the principles of non-
structural and structural quantitative (semantic
differential) analysis was used in the
reconnaissance analysis of Lithuanian social
in order to consider the subjective aspect. The
latter method enabled to determine the
preliminary weighting factors of the landscape
visual quality criterions while evaluating
different landscape visual types by the experts
and laity. Landscape visual types were chosen
according to the degree of culturalizing.
4. The process of the research showed that the
method has to be improved by performing more
thorough selection of subjective indicators and
evaluated views, determining relation between
subjective indicators and criterions, trying to
relate criterions weighting factors with objective
indicators, and etc.
5. The determination of criterions weighting
factors integration technique is one of the
aspects of the method improvement. After
testing several methods, it was decided that the
most suitable method for this aim is the
determination of criterions weighting factors in
accordance with the marginal (extreme)
meaning of the data. Thus it is possible to
consider suitably the opinion both of experts and
laity while evaluating landscape visual quality.
References
1. The law of Republic of Lithuania changing the law on
territorial planning / Parliament of Republic of
Lithuania. –Vilnius, 2004 01 15, Nr. IX – 1962. – 15
p.
2. Daniulaitis G. Formation of recreational landscape in
region planning // Topics of Lithuanian TSR
architecture, 1980, T. 6, Sas. 3, p. 127.
3. Daniulaitis G. J. The concept of city view and needs
for research. Accounting and protection of cultural
landscape: conference material. – Kaunas, 2001, p. 28
– 34.
4. Bučas J. Fundaments of environmental design. –
Kaunas, 2001. – 282.
5. Bučas J. Changes in understanding of cultural
landscapes. Accounting and protection of cultural
landscape: conference material. – Kaunas, 2001, p. 4
– 12.
6. Ėringis K., Budriūnas A. R. Methodology for the
evaluation of landscape esthetical recreation. –
Vilnius: Institute of Botany, 2000. – 38 p.
7. Šešelgis K. Environment protection. – Vilnius, 1991.
– 210 p.
8. Purvinas М. Esthetical evaluation of environment in
preparation of architecture projects. – Vilnius, 1982,
c. 1 – 35.
9. Purvinas M. Application of landscape architecture
analysis in project preparation // Topics of Lithuanian
TSR architecture, 1983, T. 8, Sąs. 1, p. 52.
 Some Methodical Aspects of Landscape Visual Quality Preferences Analysis
10. Purvinas M. Subjective evaluation of landscape //
Topics of Lithuanian TSR architecture, 1983, T. 8,
Sąs. 1, p. 60 – 67.
11. Stauskas V. Methodology of landscape evaluation in
planning of recreational regions // Topics of
Lithuanian TSR architecture, 1966, T. 3, Sąs. 5, p.
184 – 206.
12. Stauskas V., Tutlytė J. Esthetical potential of
Lithuanian landscape and its relation with zones of
recreational interests. Accounting and protection of
cultural landscape: conference material. – Kaunas,
2001, p. 13 – 17.
13. Stauskas V. The Location of Aesthetical Values as the
Essential Framework for Landscape Spatial Planning:
Proceedings of the World Congress of Landscape
Architects. – Singapure, 2001, p. 110 – 116.
14. Палис В. Архитектурно-пространственная
организация структуры равнинного
сельскохозяйственного ландшафта: канд. дис.
aвтореферат. – Москва, 1979. – 17 c.
15. Kavaliauskas P. Quantitative parameters of
anthropogenized landscape structure optimum //
Scientific research of Lithuanian TSR. Geography,
1989, T. 25, p. 4 – 16.
16. Kavaliauskas P. Methodological review of landscape
recreational bonitation systems // Topics of
Lithuanian TSR architecture, 1974, T. 4, p. 73 – 87.
17. Review of Existing Methods of Landscape
Assessment and Evaluation. – Scotland: Macaulay
Land Use Research Institute, 1997. – 114 p.
18. Arthur L. M., Daniel T. C., Boster R. S. Scenic
Assessment: an Overview. – Great Britain, 1977, p.
109 – 129.
19. Daniel T. C., Vining J. Methodological Issues in the
Assessment of Landscape Quality // Plenum Press,
1983, Chapter 2, p. 39 – 83.
20. Kavaliauskas P. Methodological fundaments of
environmental design. – Vilnius, 1992. – 147 p.
21. Ataov A. Environmental Aesthetics // Journal of
Planning Literrature, 1998, V. 13, I. 2, p. 239 – 257.
22. Hagerhall C. M. Clustering Predictors of Landscape
Preference in the Traditional Swedish Cultural
Landscape: Prospect – Refuge, Mystery, Age and
Management // Environmental Psychology, 2000,
Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 83 – 90.
23. Issues of Preference and Judgement. – Scotland:
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, 1997. – 17 p.
24. Buhyoff G. L., Miller P. A., Hull R. B., Schlagel D.
H. Another Look at Expert Visual Assessment // AI
Applications, 1995, No. 9, p. 112 – 120.
25. Kane P. S. Assessing Landscape Attractiveness: a
Comparative Test of Two New Method // Applied
geography, Chapter 1. – USA, 1981, p. 77 – 96.
26. Стаускас В. Градостроительная организация
районов и центров отдыха. – Ленинград, 1977, c.
39 – 40.
27. Šipaila A. Tendencies of weekend recreation
development and principles of planning organization
// Topics of Lithuanian TSR architecture, 1974, T. 4,
p. 7 – 27.
28. Kavaliauskas P., Kurševičius K. Landscape and
recreational needs of Lithuanian inhabitants //
Scientific research of Lithuanian TSR. Geography and
geology, 1977, Vol. 13, p. 37 – 44.
29. Kavaliauskas P., Ignatonis J. Peculiarities of
recreational needs of Lithuanian inhabitants and
tendencies with respect to planning // Scientific
research of Lithuanian TSR. Urban and regional
planning, 1990, T. 16, p. 93 – 109.
59
30. Report of Lithuanian national tourism development
program / V. Stauskas. – Kaunas: ASI, 1994, p. 1 –
19.
31. Strategy of Lithuanian tourism development until
2015 / V. Vengrauskas. – Vilnius: LRTI, 2002, p. 10
– 15.
32. Kamičaitytė-Virbašienė J. Regulation of landscape
visual quality in environmental design (Lithuanian
case): PhD thesis. – Kaunas, 2003. – 193 p.
33. Daniulaitis G. J., Kamičaitytė-Virbašienė J. Problem
of landscape esthetical and visual quality in
environmental design. Visual quality of landscape:
conference material. – Kaunas, 2002, p. 16 – 23.
34. Kamičaitytė-Virbašienė J. Social Preferences
Evaluating Landscape Visual Quality and Their
Application in Environmental Design. Sustainable
Development of the Civil Engineering and
Architecture: proceedings of the Baltic Sea
Workshop. – Kaunas: Technologija, 2003, p. 5 – 12.
35. Zavadskas E. K., Kaklauskas A. Systemotechnical
evaluation of buildings. – Vilnius, 1996, p. 99 – 121.
36. Zavadskas E. K., Kaklauskas A., Banaitienė N.
Multicriteria analysis of building life cycle. – Vilnius,
2001. – 380 p.
37. Janušaitis R., Liubinskaitė R. Multicriteria evaluation
of façade painting using network model and decision
multistage synthesis methods // Civil Engineering,
2001, T. 7, Nr. 6, p. 468 – 473.
Dr. Jūratė Kamičaitytė – Virbašienė, lecturer at the
department of Architecture and Environmental
Design, Faculty of Building and Architecture, Kaunas
University of Technology.
Main research areas: landscape visual quality
analysis, evaluation and regulation by means of
environmental design, methods of planned activity or
object visual impact assessment, analysis of social
preferences evaluating landscape visual quality and
use of the analysis results in territory planning.
Adress: Studentų st. 48 – 307
LT - 51368 Kaunas
Tel.: +370-37-300456
Fax: +370-37-451546
E-mail: jurate.kamicaityte@ktu.lt
Dr. Rolandas Janušaitis, associate professor at the
Department of Building Structures, Faculty of
Building and Architecture, Kaunas University of
Technology.
Main research areas: technology and organisation of
building work, thermal renovation of buildings,
technological modelling and multicriteria evaluation
of alternative solutions of building processes.
Address: Studentų st. 48 – 414
LT - 51368 Kaunas
Tel.: 8-37-300480
Fax: 8-37-300454
E-mail: rolandas.janusaitis@saf.ktu.lt
 J. Kamičaitytė – Virbašienė, R. Janušaitis

Kai kurie visuomenės požiūrio į kraštovaizdžio vizualinę kokybę

analizės metodikos klausimai

Jūratė Kamičaitytė-Virbašienė, Rolandas Janušaitis

Kauno technologijos universitetas

(gauta 2004 m. kovo mėn., atiduota spaudai 2004 m. spalio mėn.)

Remiantis antropoekologine kraštotvarkos paradigma, kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės

apsaugos ir gerinimo būtinumas yra vienas pagrindinių principų priimant kraštotvarkinius
sprendimus, o kraštovaizdžio vizualinė kokybė sąlygojama subjektyviojo ir objektyviojo aspekto
santykio. Šiandien, reguliuojant kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės kaitą, daugiau dėmesio
kreipiama į objektyviuosius kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės rodiklius negu į visuomenės požiūrį
kaip subjektyvųjį aspektą ir kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės vertinimo matą. Kraštotvarkos
praktikoje poreikį įvertinti ir reguliuoti kraštovaizdžio vizualinę kokybę lemia ne tik kultūrinė bei
socialinė, bet ir ekonominė aplinkos vizualinių savybių vertė, didėjanti vizualinės aplinkos
informacinė svarba visuomenei. Todėl, sprendžiant kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės tyrimo ir
vertinimo uždavinius, visų pirma svarbu išsiaiškinti ne tik objektyviuosius kraštovaizdžio
vizualinės kokybės rodiklius (beje, ši Lietuvos kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės reguliavimo
sritis analizuota gana plačiai), bet ir kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės svarbą visuomenei bei
teikiamus prioritetus vertinant kraštovaizdžio vizualinę kokybę.
Norint gauti minėtus rezultatus, būtina parengti būsimo tyrimo metodiką, t.y. išsamią,
nuosekliai parengtą programą bei metodiškai aprobuotą scenarijų. Siekiant šio tikslo, atliktas
visuomenės požiūrio į kraštovaizdžio vizualinę kokybę žvalgomasis tyrimas. Todėl pagrindiniai
straipsnyje aptariami klausimai – visuomenės ir kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės santykio
analizės metodinių principų formulavimas atliekant eksperimentinį (žvalgomąjį) tyrimą bei
metodikos tobulinimo galimybių paieška.
Tyrimo metodiniai principai formuojami remiantis užsienio šalių ir Lietuvos patirtimi,
nagrinėjant visuomenės ir kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės santykio tyrimų teorinę ir praktinę
medžiagą. Užsienio specialistai kraštovaizdžio vizualinę kokybę tiria kompleksiniais metodais,
kurie apima bendrojo įspūdžio ir struktūrinės (semantinio diferencialo) analizės principus. Šie
metodai yra sudėtingesni, bet tikslesni ir optimaliai atsižvelgia į subjektyvųjį ir objektyvųjį
kraštovaizdžio vertinimo aspektą. Lietuvoje daugiausia naudojami struktūrinės analizės metodai,
pagrindinį dėmesį kreipiant į objektyviuosius kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės veiksnius.
Remiantis atliktų tyrimų apžvalga, žvalgomajame tyrime pasirinktos bendrojo įspūdžio ir
semantinio diferencialo tyrimų metodinės kryptys. Tokiu būdu siekiama susieti bendrojo įspūdžio
tyrimų ir struktūrinės skaičiuojamosios analizės rezultatus ir pereiti į kompleksinio metodo
panaudojimo lygmenį.
Pateikiami apibendrinti tyrimo rezultatai, gauti pasitelkus bendrojo įspūdžio metodą, rodo,
kad natūralaus ir mažai sukultūrinto kraštovaizdžio vizualiniam tipui skiriami aukšti arba labai
aukšti vertinimai, tuo tarpu, sukultūrinto ir mažai urbanizuoto kraštovaizdžio vizualinis tipas
vertinamas žemesniais balais. Urbanizuoto kraštovaizdžio vizualinis tipas vertinamas prieštaringai:
individualaus silueto miestui skiriami aukšti vertinimai, o pramonės įmonės teritorijos vaizdui
vieningai skiriami žemiausi balai. Kadangi kraštovaizdžio vizualinius tipus vertino ekspertai ir
nespecialistai, jų nuomonės skyrėsi. Nustatyta, kad nespecialistai labiau vertino natūralaus ar
mažai sukultūrinto kraštovaizdžio vizualinį tipą, o specialistai – palyginti aukštą vertinimą skyrė ir
urbanizuotos aplinkos vaizdui bei žemesnius vertinimus – natūralaus ir mažai sukultūrinto
kraštovaizdžio vizualiniam tipui. Vadinasi, profesinė patirtis lėmė specialistų vertinimo pirmumą.

60
 Some Methodical Aspects of Landscape Visual Quality Preferences Analysis

Siekiant atsakyti į klausimą, kodėl taip buvo vertinama, pabandyta nustatyti kiekvieno vaizdo
atitikimą siūlomiems apibūdinimams, 5 pakopų skalėje naudojant semantinio diferencialo analizės
metodinius principus. Nustačius kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės subjektyviuosius rodiklius,
paaiškėjo, kad pagrindiniai ekspertų ir nespecialistų kriterijai, lemiantys vertinimą, yra
kraštovaizdžio sandaros gyvybingumas, harmoningumas, išraiškingumas ir prasmingumas.
Natūralaus ir mažai sukultūrinto kraštovaizdžio vizualinio tipo reginių vertinimui svarbiausi
gyvybingumo, išraiškingumo ir harmoningumo kriterijai; sukultūrinto, mažai urbanizuoto ir
urbanizuoto – sudėtingumo, harmoningumo ir prasmingumo aspektai. Čia taip pat buvo pastebimas
nespecialistų ir ekspertų nuomonių skirtumas.
Tyrimo eiga parodė, kad tyrimo metodiką dar būtina tobulinti atliekant išsamesnę gausesnių
subjektyviųjų rodiklių ir vertinamų vaizdų atranką, nustatant subjektyviųjų rodiklių santykį su
kriterijais ir kriterijų svarbą, bandant susieti kriterijų svarbos koeficientus su objektyviaisiais
rodikliais, bei kitais požiūriais.
Vienas iš straipsnyje aptariamos metodikos tobulinimo aspektų – integruotų kriterijų svarbos
koeficientų, susiejančių skirtingą ekspertų ir nespecialistų nuomonę, nustatymo mechanizmo
suradimas. Išaiškinta, kad šiam tikslui tinkamiausias – kriterijų svarbos koeficientų nustatymas,
žinant kraštines (ekstremalias) duomenų reikšmes, nes tokiu būdu deramai atsižvelgiama į
nespecialistų ir ekspertų požiūrį vertinant kraštovaizdžio vizualinę kokybę.
Tolesnis tokio pobūdžio tyrimų etapas – tyrimo duomenų įvertinimas daugiamatės analizės
(ordinačių) metodais, atsižvelgiant į tai, kam atstovauja respondentai bei kriterijų nustatymas pagal
kur kas didesnio komplekto subjektyviųjų rodiklių faktorinę analizę. Pastarosios analizės
rezultatas turėtų būti subjektyviųjų rodiklių grupavimas pagal atitiktį vertinimo kriterijams.
Tuomet, nustatytus kriterijų svarbos koeficientus susiejus su kraštovaizdžio vizualinės kokybės
objektyviaisiais rodikliais, būtų įmanoma kraštovaizdžio vizualinę kokybę reguliuoti, kiekybiškai
įvertinant visuomenės nuomonę apie kraštovaizdžio vizualinio pobūdžio pokyčius. Tam galėtų būti
panaudota regresinė analizė, tačiau tokio matematiškai pagrįsto ir logiško susiejimo mechanizmo
detalizacija – ateities uždavinys, kuris lemtų semantinio diferencialo tyrimų metodinės krypties
plėtrą.

61