The Relationship of Observer and Landscape in Landscape Evaluation

Author(s): K. I. Unwin
Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, No. 66 (Nov., 1975), pp. 130-134
Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/621627
Accessed: 19-06-2015 12:29 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:29:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The relationshipof andlandscape
observer
inlandscapeevaluation
K. I.UNWIN
Lecturerin Urbanand RegionalPlanning,Lanchester
Polytechnic

MS received4 April 1975

ABSTRACT.The observer'sphysical,
perceptualand evaluativerelationship to measure.Land-
withthelandscapeis difficult
scapeoccursas an independent,objectivephenomenon somethingliketheimagein a verticalairphotograph,butis seenvery
bytheobserveras a seriesofobliqueviewswhichareuniqueto theviewerand viewpoint.
differently The landscape/observer
is one of environment
perceptualrelationship ratherthanobjectperception, a notionwhichallowsthevisiblelandscapeto
encompasstheinfluence ofthenatureoftheactivities in whichtheobserveris engaged,variousformsofperipheral informa-
tionand propertiesofmeaningor atmosphere attachedto thelandscape.None oftheseis directlyvisiblebuteach is widely
heldto influencelandscapeperception and valuation.Measurement oflandscapequalitycan be concernedwitheitherthe
observer'spersonalpreferencesand opinionsor his assessmentof thevalueof thelandscapeagainstan objectiveaesthetic
standardcommonto his culture.

LANDSCAPE evaluation ofsomeofthemorefundamental

isata stagewherethereis a needforinvestigation
problems canbe basedon knowledge
so thatevaluation andassumptionsofgreater In thiscon-
validity.
textthispaperis concerned withthedefinition
oflandscapeandwithlandscapeevaluation in relation
to
aspectsof theobserver'slandscapeexperience.
THE NATURE OF THE LANDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE EVALUATION
The landscapemaybe regarded as one oftheparameters of landevaluation. It can be definedas the
appearance of theland at the interfaceof the earth'ssurfaceand So
atmosphere. defined, itis a composite
ofthevisualaspectsofall otherlandparameters. Essentially itsstudyis concerned withthemorphology
ofitsvisualattributes,rather thanwiththeirunderlying social,economic andphysical, pastandpresent
and
explanations processes.
The featurescomposing thelandscapearethusthevisibleaspectsoftheshapeofthegroundandthe
land-usefeatures,
superficial butlandscapes derivedistinctive as muchfrom
character thespatialarrange-
mentandrelative dispositions ofindividual components as fromthegroundshapeandland-usefeatures.
In additionto thesemorepermanent featurestheappearance ofanylandscapeis affected bytransient
conditions ofweather, lighting, diurnaland seasonalchangesand thepresenceofpeople,animalsand
vehicles.It is difficultto includesuch transients in landscapestudies,but theycan be surprisingly
dominant.
Landscapeevaluation is a complexprocess, whichmaybe subdivided intothreephases.Operation-
allyitmaynotbe necessary, orevendesirable, tokeepthemseparate, butitis suggested thatrecognition
of thedifferent phasesis an aid to clearthinking aboutthenatureof evaluation problems and to the
identificationofareaswheremorefundamental workis required.
The threephasesmaybe defined as follows.Landscapemeasurement is theobjectivedescription
of thelandscapewhichproducesan inventory
and classification ofwhatactuallyexists,withno con-
siderationof'scoring'ona qualitative basis.Landscapepreference orvaluemeasurement is theinvestiga-
tionandmeasurement ofvaluejudgements orpreferences forthevisuallandscape. Withinthisphaseare
includedperception problems relatingtothenatureofthelandscapeimagesforwhichqualitative assess-
mentsareto be made.Thesestagesoffer twocomplexand widelydifferent mensuration problems, the
resultsofwhichhavetobe relatedtogether toproducethethirdphase,a landscapeevaluation, definedas
theassessment ofthequalityoftheobjective visuallandscapein termsofindividual or societalprefer-

130

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:29:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 evaluation
Landscape I3I
encesfordifferent theremainder
landscapetypes.In thecontextof thesedefinitions, of thispaperis
concernedwithproblems
oflandscapeevaluationderivingfrom the natureoftheobserver's
landscape
experience.
THE NATURE OF THE OBSERVER'S LANDSCAPE EXPERIENCE
of theobserver
The landscapeexperience maybe regarded thephysical
as havingthreecomponents:
ofthelandscapeobserver
relationships and landscape,theobserver's ofthelandscape,and
perception
thenatureofpreferences
forand valuations
ofthelandscape.

Physicalrelationshipsof the landscape observerand the landscape

The natureof thelandscapeas seen is verydifferent fromits natureas an entityindependent of an
observer. In independent formthelandscapeis liketheimageseenin a vertical airphotograph ormore
abstractlyina map.It is all-pervading andcontinuous withno blankspacesorgaps.As witha map,itis
at constant scale,accuracyand clarity. Whilstactualhuesvary,thetoneandvalueofcoloursarefairly
similaracrossthewholelandscape.
Therefore it is notdifficult to conceptualize thelandscapein one's 'mind'seye',butwhatwe see
withtherealeyeis verydifferent. The landscapeis seenas a seriesofobliqueviews,eachbeingapproxi-
matelycone-shaped withitsapexat theviewingpoint.As a resultoftheirdistancefromtheviewpoint
and thediffering physicalperceptual capacitiesof theobserver, featureswithinthevieware seenat
differentscalesand withdifferent of and
degrees accuracy clarity. Individual features havedifferent
coloursand different characteristicsaccording to thedistanceoverwhichtheyare viewed.Becauseof
areasofobstructed vision,somefeatures arenotseenat all.
The appearance oflandscapefeatures is verymuchcontrolled bythelocationoftheviewpoint from
whichtheyareseenandtheorientation andnatureoftheviewwithin whichtheyoccur.Byitsnature, a
viewonlyhasrelevance to theviewpoint fromwhichitis observedandis thussubjective to theviewer,
whereastheactuallandscapehasan independent, objectivee-istenceofitsown.The landscapein 'view-
form'is a multiplicity ofoverlapping views.Fromanyone viewpoint a numberof quiteseparateand
possiblyquitedifferent viewsmaybe seen.For practical purposesthenumberofpossibleviewpoints
maybe regarded as infinite,
thusallowingthelandscapefeatures ofan areato be assembledintomany
differentviews.The casualobserver is likelyto see veryfewofthepossiblearrangements ofthesame
featuresintodifferent combinations offoreground, middleground andbackground. Obviously themeas-
urement ofa representative numberofviewswouldbe an enormous data-generating andhandling task.
A number ofspecific measurement problems arisefromtreating thelandscapein viewform. When
a viewis measuredand valued,shouldtheresultsreferto the viewpointor to the land withinthe
view? If thevaluesare assignedto theviewpoint, ariseoverthevaluesof different
difficulties views
to be seenfromthesamepoint.The valuesmaybe amalgamated in someway,butitis likelythatout-
standingly highor low valuesmaythusbe lost.If a value is assignedto the view,it is difficult to
reconcilethisvaluewiththosewhichare givento an area in the contextof the otherviewswithin
whichit lies.Theseproblems aresimplified in thespecialcaseof treatment of thelandscapewhichis
visiblefroma roadorfootpath.
Whilstdifficulties ariseoverwhereto assignviewvalues,morefundamental problems relateto the
dichotomy betweentheindependent objectivelandscapeand theviewform subjective landscape.In-
evitablythelandscapeis seenbytheobserver andthusvaluedinitsviewform, butthephysical character
ofthelandscapeis mostoftenand mosteasilymeasured in relationto theobjective landscapebyusing
arealunitssuchas thetract(Fines,I968; Hertfordshire CountyCouncil,1970; Countryside Commission
forScotland,1971)orgridsquare(Coventry-Solihull-Warwickshire Sub-Regional StudyGroup,I971).
Theseunitsarelargelyrelatedto theindependent landscapebyvirtueoftheircomplete arealcoverage
and disregard forthepotentially changing natureoffeatures whentheyarelocatedin different partsof
views.However, tractsdo bearsomeconceptual relationshiptoviewform landscapes. The initialdivision
ofa landscapeintotractsbeforeanymeasurement is madeinvolvessomeapparently notveryobjective
pre-judgement ofthelandscape'slineaments and impliessomevisualhomogeneity overa tractarea,so
thatmeasurement of different viewswithinthetractmaybe expectedto yieldsimilarresults.If such

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:29:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I32 K.I.UNWIN

homogeneity can reasonably be discerned priorto anydetailedmeasurement, thentheproblemof re-

latingtheviewform landscapeto theindependent landscapemaybe partially resolved.However,the
landscape featuresfrequently used to definetractboundaries,such as hillridges,scarpcrestsandso on,
seemtooimportant to be thussubsumed.
Topographic characteristics are important,notonlyas dominant contributors to theformof the
landscape, butalso fortheirinfluence upontheviewsobtainedbya landscapeobserver; theycaneither
closeand restrict viewsor allowvisionoverwidevistas.The observer's position relativeto thetopo-
graphyobviouslyexertsa majorcontrolupontheviewshe experiences. ExaminingNorthAmerican
forestlandscapes, Burton-Litton (1968)recognized threeprincipal positions fromeachofwhichviews
are dominated by different view segments. These are observer inferior, observer normaland observer
superior, in whichthecharacter oftheviewsis respectively enclosedanddominated bytheforeground,
intermediate withstresson themiddleground, and wide-ranging 'overviews'dominated bytheback-
ground.Intermediate statesare,ofcourse,possible,thesebeingpositions on a continuum.
Movementthrough a seriesof differenttopographic positionswillproducea sequenceof varied
landscapeexperience, whilstcontinuation ofthesametypeoftopographic positionmayproducea sense
of monotony. The natureof a sequenceof viewswillinfluence theindividual's landscapeexperience;
onlypartofa landscapecanbe seenat anyonetime,butmemory andanticipation providepatterns and
contrast.It maybe thatresponse tothelandscapewillbe morefavourable forsomesequencesthanothers,
depending upontheircapacitiesforproducing surprise,contrast, building-up anticipationand so on.
In evaluating thelandscapeofa regionitis difficult tospecify sequential experiences, forindividuals
are freeto wanderat willthroughthe landscape.Whendealingwiththe landscapefroma specific
route,theeffects ofsequencearemorereadilyanalysedand indeedmaybe usedin landscapeplanning
to manipulate theattention oftheobserver, perhapsawayfromlandscapedetractors; although thisdoes
becomemoredifficult to achieveifentryto theroute,and thusto theviewsequence,is obtainable at a
variety ofdifferent places.The workofAppleyard (I964) andhisco-workers on theviewfromtheroad
appearstooffer a number ofpossibilitiesforusefuldevelopment inthisarea.It is thusapparent thateven
froma simplephysical-geometric pointof view,landscapeevaluationinvolvesseveremensuration
problems. These problems are furthercompounded whenwe examinetheperceptual of
relationships
observer and landscape.

Perceptualrelationshipsof the landscape observerto the landscape

In forming opinionsaboutthelandscape,observers arereactingnotto theindependent objectiveland-
scape,norto theviewform landscape,butto theirownimageof thelandscape.This imagewillbear
somerelationship to theviewform landscape,butwillalso be an abstractionor elaborationofthereal
physical landscapeaccording tothewayinwhichtheindividual responds toandstructureshisworldas a
resultofhisphysical perceptual socio-economic,
capacities, cultural,
personality, andother
experiential
characteristics.It is thispersonalimagewhichwillbe evaluatedin theforming oflandscapepreferences
andjudgements.
In landscapeevaluation, one is dealingnotwithobjectperception butwithwhatIttelson(I973)
distinguishes as environment perception. This is an important forobjectsareobservedfrom
distinction,
an outsideposition,whereasenvironments surroundan observerso thathe becomesan 'insider',a
participantintheenvironment. Environmental perception thushaspropertiesnotgenerallyencountered
in objectperception. Forinstance,becausethelandscapesurrounds itsobserver andis notan obviously
boundedobject,theobserver mustplacehis ownboundaries uponit in recognizing typesor
different
portions oflandscapes. Tractsandotherstructures ownperception
imposedbya landscapeinvestigator's
ofthelandscapemaynotaccordwiththeindividual's imageofthelandscape,so providing sourcesof
erroror confusion in preferenceinvestigation.
Second,wherever theattention of thelandscapeobserveris directed, thereis alwaysperipheral
information availablein thesenseofviewsin theotherdirection, or previousviewsin a sequence.In-
evitably,as partoftheobserver's veryimmediate priorknowledgeofthelandscape, thesewillbearonhis
present perception and valuationsbyvirtueofimmediate comparison.
Third,sincethelandscapeis a surrounding itsperception
environment, is almostalwaysinvolved

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:29:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Landscapeevaluation I33
withactionof somekind.Seldomwillactionsbe solelydirectedtowardsthelandscapeand,in many
instances,willinvolveactivitiesin whichthelandscapeis onlyincidentally regarded. This suggests that
bothperceptions ofand preferencesforthelandscapeneedto be examined in thelightofvarioustypes
ofactivity,withtheexpectation thatdifferentactivities
willbe associatedwithdifferent typesofland-
scaperesponse. Perhaps,therefore,thereis a needforlandscapeevaluation to be carriedoutwithrefer-
enceto specific activities.
Fourth,landscapes arewidelyheldtohaveproperties ofmeaning oratmosphere (Fines,1968)which
areinlittleornowayvisually expressed.Theseproperties arethereforenotmeasurable as partsofeither
theindependent orviewform landscape,butarenevertheless regardedas important aspectsofthenature
of thelandscapeand theobserver's landscapeexperience. An exampleofsucha landscapeproperty is
thesenseofremoteness whichappearstoheighten somepeople'slandscapeenjoyment whilstreducing it
forothers.Obviouslythereare certainconditions concerning thenumberof peopleand theirinfra-
inthelandscapewhichwillpreclude
structure a senseofremoteness formostpeople,buttheseconditions
aredifficultto define,
apartfroma visuallackofman'smoreobviouspresencein thelandscape.
Thesefourpointsserveto illustrate that,onceperception processes areinvolved, thelandscapecan
no longerbe conceived ofas an independent, concreteentity.The frequency, order,timing andpurpose
ofencounter withlandscapealteritsappearance fortheindividual whilstnotbeingapparent in thereal
objectivelandscape.In an experimental situation theseaspectsoflandscapeexperience are difficult
to
accountfor,butobviously mustbe considered iflandscapeevaluation is to be basedon a greater under-
standingoftheperceived landscape.
Evaluative relationshipsof the landscape observerand the landscape
Measurement ofthequalityofthelandscapeis byno meansa neglected areaofinvestigation.Usuallyit
has beenapproached eitherbyaskingpeopleto ranklandscapesaccording to theirpreferences (Shafer
etal., I969) orbysomearbitrary pointssystem wherebydifferentphysicalandlandscapecharacteristics
areassumedtoeithercontribute toordetract fromthetotallandscapevalue(Linton,I968). Suchscoring
systems areusuallydevisedbythelandscapeinvestigator, basedon hisownjudgement or,as in thecase
ofFine's(I968) work,relatedtoan investigation ofthelandscapeopinionsofa groupofdesignexperts.
The former approachinvestigatespeople'spreferences forcertainlandscapes,ratherthantheir
assessment ofthevalueorqualityofthelandscape.The lattereitherassumesthatthesurveyor ordesign
expert'sopinionsare a reasonablerepresentation of somecommonview,or thatthrough theirdesign
training thesepeopleare able to assesslandscapeagainstsomecommonobjectiveaestheticstandard
(Craik,1972)whichcan be usedas an arbiter oflandscapequality.The assumption underlying thesup-
posedexistenceof suchan objectivestandardis that,dependingupon theireducation,training and
awareness, all members ofa commonculturewill,toa greater orlesserextent,
subscribetothatstandard.
They are thusable to valuelandscapesindependently of theirown personalpreferences, whichare
relatedtousecontexts andotherindividualcircumstances andwhicharealwaysgoingtomakelandscape
evaluation problems extremely severe.The existenceofsucha standard wouldbe highly contentious and
wouldlaylandscapeevaluation andplanning opentochargesofprofessional andaesthetic elitism;butit
is an attractiveideaforit wouldremovemuchoftheneedto considerthecomplexities ofpersonalcir-
cumstances affecting
landscaperesponseandwouldrendermoreacceptable theproduction oflandscape
evaluations byspecialists.
CONCLUSION
In contrasttocurrentattempts toproducecomplete thereis a needforbasicworkon specific
evaluations,
aspectsof theevaluationprocess,suchas investigation of suitableunitsforlandscapeinventory, the
natureand contribution oflandscapesequenceand surprise,whether peoplerespondto thelandscape
as a wholeortokeyfeatures, howtheyreacttointensive developments in thelandscape,towhatdegree
aestheticqualitycan be equatedwithvisualattributesofefficiently
operating social,economicandeco-
logicalsystems,whatis thelevelofcontribution ofnon-visualfeaturesto thelandscapeexperience and
so on. Essentially
thereis a needforcarefulinvestigation
and validation offundamental ideas,so that
elaboratelandscapeevaluations can be builtupona sounderbase.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:29:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 K.I.UNWIN
REFERENCES

D., LYNCH,K. and MYER,J. R. (1964) Theviewfromtheroad(Cambridge,Mass.)

APPLEYARD,
BURTON-LITTON,R. (I968) Forestlandscape andinventories-a
description anddesign(Berkeley,
basisforlandplanning Calif.)
COUNTRYSIDE COMMISSION FORSCOTLAND forScottishlandscaperesources
(1971) A planningclassification (Battleby,Perth)
COVENTRY-SOLIHULL-WARWICKSHIRE SUB-REGIONAL PLANNING STUDYGROUP(197I) A strategy for thesub-region.
Suppl.
Rep. No. 5 Countryside
CRAIK,K. H. (1972) 'Psychologicalfactorsin landscapeappraisal',Environ.Behav.4 255-66
FINES,K. D. (1968) 'Landscape evaluation:a researchprojectin East Sussex',Reg.Stud. 2, 41-55
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTYCOUNCIL(1970) Hertfordshire countryside plan, HertfordshireCounty Council Plann. Dep.,
Hertford
ITTELSON,W. H. (I973) Environment and cognition(New York)
LINTON,D. L. (1968) 'The assessment ofsceneryas a naturalresource',Scott.geogrlMag. 84, 219-38
SHAFER,E. L., JR.,HAMILTON, J. F., JR.and SCHMIDT, E. A. (1969) 'Naturallandscapepreferences: a predictivemodel',
J. LeisureRes. i, 1-19

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:29:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions