Landscape character

Swanwick, Carys; Fairclough, Graham

doi:10.4324/9781315753423-2

Cited by 41 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The reason for this is the fact that some data on the study area may come to the forefront. Swanwick (2002Swanwick ( , 2006 emphasized in his studies that landscape classifications showed variations according to the country, region and area in which they were performed. Therefore, this may change according to the region where the study area is located.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies conducted by Swanwick (2002), Mücheret al 2005 2010were examined, and the Landscape Character Areas (LCA) in these studies were taken as the bases, and were revised according to the characteristic properties of the study area. The Parametric Method (Wascher 2005), which is based on the evaluation of different physical layers that constitute the landscape, and the Interpretive Approach (Swanwick 2002), which is based on on-site observation and analysis on the aesthetic values was used to define the Landscape Character Areas. The study was conducted in 3 basic stages: (1) Determination of the variables and selection of the databases, (2) field survey, (3) classification of the landscape character types and field ( Figure 2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Firstly, the study of Swanwick (2002) was taken as the basis, and it was revised by adding the cultural landscape factors in Savsatarea after the pre-analyses in the field, and the -landscape character analysis field survey form‖ was organized. The following 4 routes were determined to cover the whole of the study area( Figure 3).…”

Section: Field Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Landscape Character Analysis‖ (LCA) was used as a term in the scope of -European Landscape Character Assessment Initiative‖ (ELCAI).European Landscape Character Analysis study was applied with the participation of 14 different countries in Europe, and there are 51 specific examples in this field. Many of these examples are in national scale like UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Hungary, (Heritage Council 2006;Wrbkaet al 1999;Van Eetvelde and Antrop 2007;Swanwick 2002;Turner 2005),or in regional scale like Lower Normandy (France), Belgium (Gulincket al 2001, Gomez-Sal et al 2003, Kim and Pauleit 2007.In order to ensure a unity that is acceptable at international level by using a common language on the definition, protection, management and planning of landscapes, the European Landscape Convention (ELC) was opened for signature in 2000, and became effective in 2004. The countries that are members or candidates, which accepted the agreement, and among which Turkey also existed, are responsible for defining their landscapes, determining the character types of their landscapes, and follow-up of the changes and the transformations of the landscapes (Van Eetvelde and Antrop 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Peyzaj Karekter Alanları ve Tiplerinin Yerel Ölçekte Belirlenmesi: Artvin-Şavşat Örneği, Türkiye

Tırnakçı¹,

Özer²

2018

Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the landscape character assessment (LCA) methodology was tested at the district scale in Savsat, which is located in the Turkish Eastern Black Sea Region. In addition, the role of the LCA at a district scale in the determination of the tourism and protection potential of the landscape character areas, the development of the regional policies, and integrating them into current land use policies are also discussed in the study.We usedthe LCA methods in this study. The natural and cultural datawere collected in thestudy areas. The determination of thelandscape character areas and ecological analyses were evaluated in GIS; moreover, thelandscape character areas were identified with-Area Survey Forms‖. As a result of theanalyses, 854 different landscape character types and 13 landscape character areas were determined. We also prepared identity cards to determinethe landscape character areas.As a result, the importance of LCA Method in protecting biodiversity, rural development, and tourism strategies were emphasized in the study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Field Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Peyzaj Karekter Alanları ve Tiplerinin Yerel Ölçekte Belirlenmesi: Artvin-Şavşat Örneği, Türkiye

Tırnakçı¹,

Özer²

2018

Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The traditional approach to understanding appreciation and awareness of landscapes is through the 25 use of local case studies to capture local dynamics. This approach has predominated because of the 26 weight of evidence that peoples' attitudes to, and perceptions of, landscape are place-specific (Scott 27 and Benson, 2002;Swanwick, 2002;Swanwick, 2009). It is very probable therefore, that the way in 28 which awareness of landscapes is expressed will also vary between societies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The EU societal awareness of landscape indicator: A review of its meaning, utility and performance across different scales

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstrats:There is increasing recognition that agricultural landscapes meet multiple societal needs and demands beyond provision of economic and environmental goods and services. Accordingly, there have been significant calls for the inclusion of societal, amenity and cultural values in agri-environmental landscape indicators to assist policy makers in monitoring the wider impacts of land-based policies. However, capturing the amenity and cultural values that rural agrarian areas provide, by use of such indicators, resents significant challenges. The EU social awareness of landscape indicator represents a new class of generalized social indicator using a top-down methodology to capture the social dimensions of land-scape without reference to the specific structural and cultural characteristics of individual landscapes. This paper reviews this indicator in the context of existing agri-environmental indicators and their differing design concepts. Using a stakeholder consultation approach in five case study regions, the potential and limitations of the indicator are evaluated, with a particular focus on its perceived meaning, utility and performance in the context of different user groups and at different geographical scales. This analysis supplements previous EU-wide assessments, through regional scale assessment of the limitations and potentialities of the indicator and the need for further data collection. The evaluation finds that the perceived meaning of the indicator does not vary with scale, but in common with all mapped indicators, the usefulness of the indicator, to different user groups, does change with scale of presentation. This indicator is viewed as most useful when presented at the scale of governance at which end users operate. The relevance of the different sub-components of the indicator are also found to vary across regions

show abstract

Factors influencing visual landscape quality perceived by the public. Results from a national survey

Wartmann

Frick

Kienast

et al. 2021

Landscape and Urban Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landscape character

Cited by 41 publications

References 0 publications

Peyzaj Karekter Alanları ve Tiplerinin Yerel Ölçekte Belirlenmesi: Artvin-Şavşat Örneği, Türkiye

Peyzaj Karekter Alanları ve Tiplerinin Yerel Ölçekte Belirlenmesi: Artvin-Şavşat Örneği, Türkiye

The EU societal awareness of landscape indicator: A review of its meaning, utility and performance across different scales

Factors influencing visual landscape quality perceived by the public. Results from a national survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About