Methodological approaches to assessment of aesthetic properties of landscapes

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Aesthetic properties are important characteristics of any territory. Currently, there are quite a few methodological developments for evaluating the aesthetic properties of landscapes. Conventionally, they can be divided into traditional assessment methods, where the assessment is based solely on fi surveys, and the other - those based on modern approach, in which fi ld research is supplemented by GIS technologies. In turn, fi surveys are highly labor-intensive and, as a result, are usually carried out for small key areas or individual routes. With the introduction of GIS and remote sensing data (RSD) of high spatial resolution, it became possible without much diffi to assess many indicators of the aesthetic attractiveness of landscapes. This article is devoted to an overview of development of modern methodological approaches to assessing the aesthetic properties of landscapes. The paper opens with historic review of the aesthetic studies of landscapes, then discusses theoretical questions such as the defi of the concept of “aesthetics of the landscape” and the exploration of aesthetic perception and, fi ally, presents a case study of application of GIS technologies for aesthetic evaluation of landscapes.

About the authors

Elina A. Lozbeneva

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: elina7-sheremet@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8668-2182

engineer of the Faculty of Geography

GSP-1 Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119899, Russian Federation

References

  1. Gumbol’dt A. Pictures of Nature. Translation from the German by TI. Konshina, edited by SV Obruchev. Moscow: Geografgiz Publ. 1959. (In Russ.)
  2. Gettner A. Geography. Its history, essence and methods. M.— L.: State Publishing House, 1930. (In Russ.)
  3. Semenov-Tyan-Shanskii VP. District and Country. M.—L.: State Publishing House, 1928. (In Russ.)
  4. Gold J. Psychology and Geography: Foundations of Behavioral Geography. Moscow: Progress Publ. 1990. (In Russ.)
  5. Nikolaev VA. Landscape Science: Aesthetics and Design. Moscow: Aspect-Press Publ. 2005. (In Russ.)
  6. Atkina LI. Landscape aesthetics: a textbook. Ekaterinburg: Yekaterinburg: Ural State Forestry University Publ. 2017. (In Russ.)
  7. Birkhoff G. Aesthetic measure. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1933.
  8. Nikolaev VA. Aesthetic perception of the landscape. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 5: Geography. 1999;(6):10—15. (In Russ.)
  9. Gobster PH. An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal. 1999;(18(1)):54—64.
  10. Toadvine T. Ecological aesthetics. In: Handbook of Phenomenological Aesthetics. Netherlands: Springer. 2009.
  11. Dirin DA, Popov ES. Assessment of landscape and aesthetic attractiveness of landscapes: a methodological review. Proceedings of the Altai State University. 2010;(3):120—124. (In Russ.)
  12. Cosgrove D. Social formation and symbolic landscape (2nd ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1998.
  13. Gibson J. Ecological approach to visual perception. Moscow: Progress Publ. 1988. (In Russ.)
  14. Filin VA. Videoecology what is good for the eye and what is bad. Moscow: Videoecology, 2006.
  15. Norberg-Shul’ts K. Life has a place. Proceedings of Higher Education Institutions. Architecton. 1995;(1—2):27—30. (In Russ.)
  16. Bredikhin AV. Aesthetic evaluation of the relief in recreational and geomorphological studies. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 5: Geography. 2005;3:7—13. (In Russ.)
  17. Gorbunova TYu, Gorbunov RV, Klyuchkina AA. Estimation of landscape-aesthetic value of landscapes of the South-Eastern Crimea. Scientific Notes of the V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. Geography. Geology. 2017;3(69)(3(2)):236—248. (In Russ.)
  18. Kalashnikova OV. Landscape-forming value of elements of landscape structure. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 2003;(3):90—93. (In Russ.)
  19. Mukhina LI. Experience in developing methods of recreational assessment of natural complexes. Geographical problems of recreation and tourism. Moscow. 1975;(2):3—13. (In Russ.)
  20. Nazarov NN, Postnikov DA. Evaluation of landscape and aesthetic attractiveness of landscapes of the Perm region for tourism and recreation. Proceedings of the Russian Geographical Society. 2002;(4):3—18. (In Russ.)
  21. Frolova MYu. Evaluation of the aesthetic merits of natural landscapes. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 5: Geography. 1994;(24):27—33. (In Russ.)
  22. Eringis KI, Budryunas ARA. The essence and methods of detailed ecological and aesthetic research of landscapes. Ecology and aesthetics of landscape. Vilnius. 1975:107—160.
  23. Sheremet EA, Dekhnich VS, Kalutskova NN. Perspectives of GIS-technology application for visual evaluation of landscapes for organization of geopark. Bulletin of the Russian Geographical Society. 2020;152(2):69—78. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S 0869607120060063
  24. Sheremet EA, Kalutskova NN, Dekhnich VS. Visual characteristics of landscapes and methods for their assessment on GIS (Belogradchik rocks (Bulgaria) as an example). InterCarto. InterGIS. GI support of sustainable development of territories: Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow: MSU, Faculty of Geography. 2021;27(2):191—204. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.35595/2414-9179-2021-2-27-191-204
  25. Rotanova IN, Vasil’eva OA. Estimation of aesthetic attractiveness of landscapes of the projected nature park «Altai foothills» with the use of geoinformation technologies. Science and tourism: strategies of interaction. Barnaul: Altai University Press. 2017;(7(5)):29—36. (In Russ.)
  26. Bibaeva AYu, Makarov AA. Application of GIS to calculate the complex indicators of aesthetic assessment of landscapes. Proceedings of the Irkutsk State University. Series: Earth Sciences. 2018;24:17—33. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26516/2073—3402.2018.24.17.
  27. Kochurov BI, Buchatskaya NV. Evaluation of the aesthetic potential of the landscape. South of Russia: Ecology, Development. 2007;(4):25—34. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18470/1992-1098-2007-4-25-34.
  28. Dirin DA. Evaluation and recreational use of landscape and aesthetic resources of Ust-Koksinsk district of the Altai Republic. Novosibirsk: Publishing house of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2007. (In Russ.)
  29. Cwiakala P, Kocierz R. Assessment of the possibility of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for the documentation of hiking trails in Alpine areas. International Journal Sensors by MDPI. 2017;18(1):1—28. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18010081.
  30. Shiou Y, Chengju D. Assessing safety and suitability of old trails for hiking using ground and drone surveys. International Journal Geo-Informational. 2020;9(4):1—17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9040221.
  31. Hackney C, Clayton A. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and their application in geomorphic mapping. Geomorphological Techniques. 2015;1(1.7):1—15.
  32. Shaoyu L, Weijie D. Application of UAV oblique photograph modeling technology in mountain tourism planning. 3rd International Symposium on EEEMS 2018. Francis Academic Press. UK. 2018:240—245. https://doi.org/10.25236/eeems.2018.047.

Copyright (c) 2022 Lozbeneva E.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies