Landscape quality based upon diversity, coherence and continuity

Kuiper, Juliëtte

doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(98)00075-9

Cited by 30 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to an objective approach, landscape quality should be measurable and comparable and can be indirectly classified and marked on a map of land relief, soil cover, or vegetation. Research of this type is generally based on itemizing the so-called substitute indices of quality, reflecting the quality of each landscape component in quantitative terms (Hendriks et al 1997; Kuiper 1998). Ecological indicators are commonly applied, providing information on the resources, degree of cleanliness, and tolerance to anthropopressure of the abiotic and biotic components of the environment (Schiller et al 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Assessment of Public Opinion on the Landscape Quality of Two Biosphere Reserves in Europe

Sowińska-Świerkosz

Chmielewski

2014

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Landscape Convention (2000) obligates European Union countries to identify and implement landscape quality objectives (LQOs) understood as the specification of public expectations and preferences concerning the landscape of a given area, expressed by competent public authorities. The convention emphasizes the important role of local community representatives in this field. In Poland, the implementation of the LQO concept was first undertaken in two regions with radically different landscape characteristics: (1) the West Polesie Biosphere Reserve and (2) the selected protected areas of the Roztocze–Solska Forest, nominated to the rank of a biosphere reserve. The first stage of the presented study was the recognition of public opinion on the quality of key features of landscape, based on a questionnaire (n = 470). The primary objective of the study was to provide an answer to the following questions: (1) Whether similar social expectations regarding landscape quality exist in spite of radically different landscape characteristics of the regions investigated (landscape quality is understood as spatial arrangement, scenic beauty, and lack of environmental pollution); (2) which landscape features are considered to be most preservation worthy by the representatives of both local communities; and (3) What processes or development impacts pose the greatest threat to the landscape quality of both regions according to the public opinion? The conducted comparative assessment revealed that it is possible to define a set of features fundamental to the quality of both areas and that representatives of local communities pointed out the same threats to the natural and cultural values of both regions investigated.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Assessment of Public Opinion on the Landscape Quality of Two Biosphere Reserves in Europe

Sowińska-Świerkosz

Chmielewski

2014

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Locate "nature development" and planting on sites offering the greatest scope for connectivity (along watercourses) and on sites which are isolated from destructive influences (Kuiper, 1998) • During heavy rainfall events, the mangrove establishes a connection with the sea, creating a natural channel that enables exchanges with the marine environment (Cristiano et al, 2020) 14…”

Section: Ecological Connectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond landscape experience: A systematic literature review on the concept of spatial quality in flood‐risk management

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often oppose the implementation of flood mitigation measures based on concerns about “spatial quality” (SQ). SQ can be an ambiguous concept, which can function as boundary object that unites stakeholders from various backgrounds. Yet, the ambiguity of SQ can also be misused to justify particular interests, result in unmet expectations and lead to miscommunication. To contribute to the understanding, communication and implementation of SQ in flood risk management projects, this study systematically reviewed the use of SQ in the literature. The first part of this review resulted in the identification of 19 aspects categorized into four dimensions of SQ: experiential, use, ecological, and long‐term quality. Based on these dimensions, we found in the second part of this review that SQ is understood either as (1) experiential quality only, (2) the combination of experiential, use, and ecological quality, and (3) the combination of all four dimensions. The review illustrates that the understanding of SQ is related to several context characteristics, including the country of author affiliation and the prominent school of thought with regards to objectivity and subjectivity. For example, only authors affiliated with Dutch institutions take into account all four dimensions of SQ. To bridge between these different understandings of SQ, this study provides a framework with a set of terms that can be used for the development of a shared language for SQ, ultimately fostering the implementation of this concept in flood risk management projects.This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water

show abstract

“…Términos afines: coherencia, correspondencia con un ideal, armonía, unidad, uniformidad, carácter holístico, equilibrio y proporción, no alteración. Se define como el grado de unidad de la escena, reforzado a veces por patrones recurrentes de color y textura o por la consistencia de elementos de relieve y edificación; en otros casos, domina una sensación de correspondencia entre las condiciones naturales y los usos del suelo de un área (Bell, 1993;Bell, 1999;Bureau of Land Management, 1984;Federal Highways Administration, 1979;Forestry Commission, 1989;Hendriks et al, 2000;Herzog, 1984Herzog, y 1989Kaplan, 1977;Kaplan y Kaplan, 1989;Kuiper, 1998;Laurie, 1975;Litton et al, 1974;Ode y Fry, 2002;Swanwick, 2002;van Mansvelt y Kuiper, 1999;USDA, 1995).…”

Section: Mantenimiento Esmero Pulcritudunclassified

“…Morille, Salamanca Riqueza formal. Tramas, matices y capas de tamaños, densidad de bordes, índices de agregación (Angileri y Toccolini, 1993;Bell, 1999;Bureau of Land Management, 1984;Buhyoff y Riesenman, 1979;Countryside Commision, 1993;Dearden, 1980Dearden, , 1985Dearden, y 1987Dramstad et al, 2001;Fjellstad et al, 2001;Forestry Commission, 1989;Germino et al, 2001;Hands y Brown, 2002;Hanyu, 2000;Herzog, 1989;Hunziker y Kienast, 1999;Kaplan y Kaplan, 1989;Kuiper, 1998;Kuiper, 2000;Laurie, 1975;Litton, 1972;Litton et al, 1974;Ode y Fry, 2002;Palmer, 2004;Stamps, 2004;Swanwick, 2002;USDA, 1995;Weinstoerffer y Girardin, 2000).…”

Section: Apertura Visual Despejamientounclassified

Límites en gradiente y paisajes intermedios en la metrópoli dual de Medellín

Venegas¹,

Betancur²

2020

ZARCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El borde urbano en la ciudad de Medellín –centro metropolitano del valle de Aburrá– responde a las características de ocupación, desarrollo y expansión de muchas de las ciudades latinoamericanas en las que se han venido generando procesos suburbanos y periurbanos cada vez más extensos y difusos que, para el caso en estudio, se presentan además como espacios de interfaz con áreas metropolitanas adyacentes. La línea imaginaria que separaba el borde urbano rural y el límite municipal y metropolitano solo existe institucionalmente. Su expresión urbana y paisajística responde mejor a lo que se enuncia y explica en este artículo con el concepto de ‘límites en gradiente’, entendido como la expresión contrastante e inequitativa de la ciudad dual, no solamente por su relación y distancia con el centro, sino por ser contenedores de procesos espaciales que se instalan de manera diferenciada y segregada desde el norte y hacia el sur de la ciudad y que pueden visibilizarse mediante cartografías y otras representaciones de esta transición espacial. Entre estos límites y los proyectos de contención de la urbanización se generan espacios intermedios que surgen como resultado de las tensiones entre estos procesos de metropolización con áreas de interfaz cuyos paisajes se encuentran en transición; algunos de ellos registran riesgo o signos de deterioro y otros están en proceso de consolidación. Todo ello, en conjunto con las áreas del límite, ilustra algunas de las contradicciones e hibridaciones de esta metrópoli dual de Medellín.

show abstract

Landscape quality based upon diversity, coherence and continuity

Cited by 30 publications

References 4 publications

Comparative Assessment of Public Opinion on the Landscape Quality of Two Biosphere Reserves in Europe

Comparative Assessment of Public Opinion on the Landscape Quality of Two Biosphere Reserves in Europe

Beyond landscape experience: A systematic literature review on the concept of spatial quality in flood‐risk management

Límites en gradiente y paisajes intermedios en la metrópoli dual de Medellín

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About