Keywords

6.1 Principles and Definitions

The perceptual dimension establishes the difference between the concept of landscape and apparently similar concepts such as territory and environment: for a landscape to exist, there must be a subject to perceive said landscape. The basic definition of the European Landscape Convention (CoE 2000) in fact is as follows, “‘landscape’ means an area, as perceived by people…” (Art. 1). The following imperative derives from this definition: “to assess the landscapes thus identified, taking into account the particular values assigned to them by the interested parties and the population concerned ” (1.b). The Recommendation on the application of the ELC refers to and develops the theme: “The sensory (visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, taste) and emotional perception which a population has of its environment and recognition of the latter’s diversity and special historical and cultural features are essential for this respect and safeguarding of the identity of the population itself and for the enrichment of the individual and of society as a whole” (CoE 2008).

Perception is subjective, but is dependent on cultural codes, in a form of mediation between individual experience and collective values. According to some schools of thought, there are in any case some universally valid parameters, associated with the instinctive and intrinsic aspects of human nature. According to others, cultural coding prevails and the existence of the “landscape view” is not universal, but limited to certain societies and periods (société paysagiste, “landscape society”, Berque 1995). In any case, for the purpose of landscape assessment it would seem useful to make a distinction between perceptual and aesthetic experience and what the ELC calls the “opinions and expressions ” of social stakeholder groups (as suggested also by Potschin and Haines-Young 2005).

Therefore we will define two fields of perceptual landscape study:

  1. (a)

    studies on visual and multisensorial perception and, also aesthetic values in the broader sense; studies on landscape preferences , in particular visual preferences belong to this field;

  2. (b)

    studies on social perception , in other words the intangible values of which the landscape is an expression and vehicle for a certain society or social group; we should identify at least two groups of these values: the cultural value (for example memorial, identity) and the fruition value or use (for example productive, living, recreational and tourist).

Obviously, there are transversal relations between the elements of the layout, for example the aesthetic value is one of cultural values , associated with the fruition value . Nevertheless, this division is instrumental as it corresponds to different research techniques, when the subjects are, on the one hand, material and formal aspects, and intangible aspects on the other. In the first case, landscape imageability is analysed, in particular with focus on objective conditions (the “geometry” of vision, the formal characteristics of the scene) generalized and predictive of concrete experience; in the second case, social acknowledgement , in other words concrete collective appreciation is considered, the reasons for which can be found in the semiosphere rather than in the ecosphere. The first approach is preferred in the field of landscape management, while the second is limited almost exclusively to a field of pure research.

Calculating the qualitative social acknowledgement of a landscape is a new goal, the application of which is more suitable for policies rather than intervention. However, the most significant field of application for measuring perceptual landscape is in the evaluation of visual impact or, in general, the landscape compatibility of new interventions. Many of the indicators used are therefore contextualized on the basis of the relationship between a (new) element and a context (for example “overall dimension”, “contrast ”). However, in the field of landscape description and assessment, parameters of a holistic nature are often used (identity, perceptual quality , visual quality, and so on).

Before continuing, we should take a moment to consider the problem of the scale of observation. Visual perception is based on the presumption that a subject is immersed in the landscape, in a certain spatial and temporal position, the visual field of which is the reference to the natural scale; this scale is suitable for measuring a certain (limited) situation, but provides excessive detail for the assessment of extensive territories. For this reason we must use abstract and simplified concepts, but this step, unlike other types of indicators, is not linear and involves the substantial change of the subject and method of measurement. For example, taken as a panoramic value, at a detailed level it is possible to measure the amplitude of a view, but on a vaster scale the best we can do is measure the number of vantage points.

Also with reference to social perception , the question of scale involves substantial changes in the layout of the work: in a limited context, we can identify the representative subjects or groups of subjects in the local situation and if necessary obtain opinions from the same directly (for example using in depth interviews, on the basis of a phenomenological approach , cf. for example Scott et al. 2009), while on a vast scale we must use forms of mediation: it is still possible to use direct research methods (choosing a sample) or indirect methods, such as the analysis of indicative representations of the collective imagination : tourist brochures, web sites, and similar references (cf., for example, Germaine 2008).

The existence of such different situations induces us to consider the aims of the study each time the need arises, to choose appropriate methods and instruments.

6.1.1 The Study of Visual and Multisensorial Perception

Different theoretical models and practical goals result in a wide variety of methods of study for visual perception . Normally, at least two approaches are defined: expert based or public perception based , on the basis of the subjects asked to express an opinion. This may be a holistic opinion, or based on components and features of the landscape scene, or on factors of perception. In fact, there are some approaches that favour “objective” factors (biophysical components ) and others that favour “subjective” factors (psychophysical components , preferences) (Daniel 2001). Daniel (2001) establishes the parameters for analysing landscape quality as follows: expert/design parameters , sensory/perceptual parameters , cognitive constructs .

The study of visual landscape perception has an extensive field of application in the assessment of the visual impact of transformations, so techniques for the quantitative measurement of objective factors have been developed, such as the formal characteristics of the scene, the “geometry” of vision (observation points, scope and depth of visual field, lines, colours, texture, etc.). Thanks to the use of Geographical Information Systems, the scale of application of these techniques has recently been developed (Brabyn 2009). Again through expert analysis, we can attribute values (spatially differentiated) of aesthetic quality, on the basis of proven criteria such as scenic beauty or attractiveness (extremely holistic), the imageability , integrity , and variety . The scenic value of a landscape can be “weighed” according to its visibility from populated places and busy routes, and on the basis of the level of public concern .

Numerous empirical studies have shown that the judgement of experts often does not correspond to that of the general public. Research and measurement techniques have therefore been developed based on the visual preference of social groups for landscapes or categories of landscape components, in both positive and negative terms. This is a field of study pursuant to psychology and environmental sociology , and uses methods of study such as interviews and questionnaires. Some researchers have tried to generalize the results of different empirical surveys, to obtain a model of preferences to use in environmental planning, other forms of planning, and for impact assessment: “By knowing what quantitative features in a landscape affect its aesthetic appeal, natural resource planners can make decisions on a factual basis about purchasing, developing, or preserving these features” (Shafer et al. 1969). The use of preference “predictors ” means the advantage of avoiding costly and complicated direct surveys on the population. The matrix of environmental preferences drawn up by Kaplan and Kaplan is well known (1989, cf. Sect. 6.2.1 and Table 6.2). Some researchers, such as Appleton (1975) and Bourassa (1990), believe that certain landscape preferences do not depend on cultural differences and have their roots in human nature (the “savannah model”, the main characteristics of which are visual openness , the presence of water and vegetation, and variety ), while others have done in-depth studies on the variety of cultural codes on the basis of ethnic groups for example. The need to generalize is understandable; nevertheless, regardless of the territorial and social contexts, it would appear to be contrary to the nature of landscape.

For some time now, a few researchers have indicated that the study of landscape perception based on vision is static and limited, and that is would be preferable to study “landscape experience ” (“cultural and experiential turn”, Scott et al. 2009). This phenomenological approach uses in depth interviews, walks and community visioning exercises to interpret individual feelings.

Landscape perception also involves other sensorial dimensions as well as view. In particular it would seem that the olfactory and auditory senses are of some significance. Nevertheless, there are no widely-used and consolidated methods of study; therefore we will not dwell on the subject. The soundscape has been given more attention (in particular in famous works such as the admonition of Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, 1962) and therefore we now have methods for measuring noise pollution, but the parameters used are not sufficiently developed for landscape.

Atmospheric effects (fogginess, limpidity) and seasonal effects are certainly significant “colourings” for generating landscape impressions and can constitute identity factors for some landscapes (the “fog in the Po Valley” for example, or snow-covered landscapes, or the colours of autumn; in Vermont, for example, the reddening of maple woods is reported by the relevant tourist service); for this reason there have been some attempts to measure the factors that generate these impressions.

6.1.2 The Study of Social Perception

Many values influence landscape perception. Aesthetic judgement can be influenced by the sense of time and memory, use of space and the interests of the observer. It is usual for value to differ on the basis of “points of view”. The study of the “values in play” that influence landscape perception can therefore be strategic in the first phases for studying a specific situation, providing guidelines for policies and the strategic planning, and to define the types of indicators.

The study of social perception uses qualitative methods and constitutes a frontier of research, supported in particular by the indications of the ELC: identify and assess landscapes on the basis of the population concerned . It appears to be immediately clear that it is impossible to generalize and use opinions based only on expert knowledge . For that matter, applicative studies have often shown the difference between the judgement of “common citizens”, who tend to give generalized opinions , and experts who tend to identify the most differentiated parts and structures. Likewise, the first difficulty is to identify and distinguish the social groups of reference , who, as clearly shown by both the explanatory notes of the Convention (CoE 2000) and the subsequent recommendations of the European Council of Ministers (CoE 2008), are not limited to a group of inhabitants but include other different points of view: administrators, tourists, stakeholders . For this reason, one of the phases of assessment consists in the identification of “receptors ”.

These groups can be asked to express opinions , on the basis of different participative procedures (discussions, workshops, questionnaires…), but landscape value is not only socially acknowledged through opinions expressed, but also in the practical use of the space and in various forms of representation, in particular figurative or literary representations that prove the fame , or in any case the presence of the same in the collective imagination . Therefore, methods of investigation can use inquiries or the analysis of landscape representations, interpreting the imagery .

Landscape is acknowledged as having different social functions , also in the documents of international bodies, from conserving collective memory to being a source of psychophysical wellbeing, amenity , educational values , etc. These values probably don’t have the same importance in the various different social and geographical contexts. The first studies therefore had the purpose of establishing the types of value attributed to landscape by social groups, in other words concerning the categorization of the relevant values. Therefore, landscapes can be classified on the basis of the level of presence/absence of certain selected values, again with reference to social opinion, if necessary highlighting the differences in the attribution of value between the often conflicting groups (for example, the use of some resources can conflict with the value of use and the value of conservation, the tourist value and the value of tranquillity ). In literature (for example OECD 1997; NIJOS 2003; Wascher 2004; Palang 2008) the most frequently used categories of landscape values are:

  • historical-cultural value (and/or traditional value),

  • identity value (and/or value for the local population),

  • aesthetic value ,

  • amenity .

Sometimes also the educational value, the scientific value, the economic-productive value (in particular for agricultural landscapes, or for those used in the tourist trade) are mentioned. In general, we can make a distinction between value in itself and the fruition value ; studies in various different territorial contexts show the population has a distinct inclination for attributing a value in itself to landscape (Rogge et al. 2007), which is perhaps the inheritance of a contemplative attitude to landscape in times gone by; nevertheless, one of the preferential criteria in the studies on populations is the appropriateness of the landscape with respect to different use (residential, productive, recreational…) (ibidem). It is easy to see that most of the conflict which must be solved in the planning phase concerns the social use of landscape, and for this reason we should focus on the utilization or fruitive value , which includes a wide range of possible uses, from recreational to residential. The influence of the above and landscape is the subject of economic studies, covered in the relevant in-depth analysis (Bottero, infra, Chap. 8). The choice of the values of reference influences the score attributed to certain parameters; for example, the relationship between aesthetic value and fruitive value , between contemplative fruition and active fruition, and the different values that parameters such as attractiveness, tranquillity , and the presence of facilities can have as a consequence.

Available literature also suggests other general indicators, regarding the social value of landscape in itself. The identitary value of landscape is a holistic concept which is often referred to (for example in the documents of the OECD, ECNC, EEA, EC) but for which parameters and indexes have rarely been established; every attempt to define the identity appears to be tautological, or in any case based on implicit assumptions.

We believe it may be useful to propose a category called ratified value , with reference to the acknowledgement of the value attributed by institutions acting in name of the community and public interest, for example with administrative acts such as designations or restrictions. The existence of protected landscapes, in fact, is based on the acknowledgement of exceptional value and can therefore be considered a “proxy” indicator of the existence of identitary value .

The theme of social acknowledgement is associated with that of social sensitivity for landscape: the goals of the ELC include the “awareness, training and education” on the subject of landscape. Therefore, on one hand there is a measure of this sensitivity (for example the presence of landscape in social communication, the existence of actions for the protection and valorisation of landscape, or opposite phenomena); while on the other hand we have the effectiveness of actions to promote awareness and training that the Convention requires of the Regional Authorities, the effectiveness and efficiency of landscape policies (Vallega 2008).

6.2 Critical Review of Landscape Perception Indicators

6.2.1 The Scenic Value of Landscape and the Relevant Indicators

The aesthetic value of landscape is the most perceived value in terms of public opinion . Along with the identitary value , it is acknowledged by international organizations and included in some sets of indicators (especially with reference to agricultural areas), for example by the EEA, ECNC and OECD. First, let’s take a look at the indicators (not many) proposed by these organizations to measure perceptual value , also on the basis of some comparative studies (for example MTT 2002; Wascher 2004; Waarts 2005).

  • openness vs. closedness , heterogeneity vs. homogeneity , linear elements (OECD 1997);

  • coherence , visual diversity , cultural identity , singular features (EEA 1998);

  • openness vs. closedness , presence/adequateness of key cultural features, land recognized for its scenic and scientific value (ECNC, ELISA, Wascher 2000);

  • landscape structures (environmental features and land use patterns, cultural features) (OECD 2001);

  • number and diversity of memorable elements (EC DG-AGR, cit. in MTT 2002);

  • Other indicators, partly used to measure the above, include: land use diversity (Wascher 2000), land use patterns (OECD 2001), land used for recreation (OECD 2003); share of characteristic habitat type (natural or cultural); share of traditional land cover types (Wascher 2000).

Some are parameters, others are cognitive categories, used also in methods based on preferences, which we will cover below. Furthermore, they can be used at different scales, but mainly on a vast scale. Note the focus on the concept of diversity: this is modified by the ecology of the landscape and ratified, for example, by the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (CoE 1995). The term landscape diversity can be ambiguous, in fact the measure of visual diversity (which should really be called variety ) is often associated with land use and ecological parameters. These criteria, and other similar criteria, such as harmony , order , and coherence , can be classified using parameters of greater detail on the characterization of landscapes, such as pattern, texture, features.

Once again, we must emphasize the fact that these indicators have been drawn up for rural areas (Reho 2007; EC 2006). Many indicator systems have been studied for specific types of landscape: natural, agricultural, urban, periurban. For this reason, we will refer to some methods for various different landscapes.

One field of application, of longstanding tradition in the USA, is Scenery Management (or Visual Resource Management) of protected areas and areas of “outstanding beauty ” (cf., in particular the manual of the USDA Forest Service—1995, and the USDI Bureau of Land Management), with an almost exclusive focus on natural landscapes. The two fundamental values of reference are Scenic Attractiveness (measured according to scale: Distinctive, Typical, Indistinctive) and Scenic Integrity ; the general criteria are variety and harmony , analysed in terms of forms, colours, texture, etc.

In Anglo-Saxon countries there is a great deal of literature and many experiences pursuant to Scenic View or Visual Assessment , which focus on the local scale and also consider the townscape (with specific methods)Footnote 1. In Great Britain, some authoritative references include the Landscape Institute manual (2002) and the manuals on Landscape Character Assessment (Swanwick 2002). The most commonly used perceptual values are scenic quality , tranquillity , wildness , and representativeness.

US methods often use scenic value according to the visibility from the most popular places and routes, and on the basis of the level of public concern , attributing a value of sensitivity Footnote 2 or significance , which can also be differentiated for different territorial levels (from local to national) and stakeholder groups. In this way, objective aspects (such as the characteristics of the scene, for example Visual openness ) and perceptual aspects are combined.

All the above-mentioned methods are based on a preliminary classification of the views and characterization of the landscape. Many studies use Geographical information systems to perform these operations automatically: GIS in fact can establish the recurrences in the presence of certain landscape components (for example the presence of water or vegetation) and, if the spatial databases are accurate, can calculate the magnitude and depth of visual basins (viewsheds ). For example, the method used in the New Zealand Landscape Classification (version 2) (Brabyn 2009) compares visual basins with types of landscapes and land use, allowing for the categories present on the area borders. The classes established attempt to represent the cognitive categories through which landscape is perceived (the hills and mountains for example), with particular focus on “preferential” elements for the population (a view of water for example). The author indicates that this classification is not yet representative of aesthetic values (or cultural values ), and must be compared to the perception of the population, but it does however provide foundations.

While in the New Zealand method, GIS is used to calculate the presence of appreciated elements (such as water courses) in the views, GIS is used in others to calculate the range of influence of visual detractors . For example, the Enplan project proposed measuring the perceptual quality of periurban agricultural spaces as a result of the distance from constructed elements considered sources of visual and sonorous impact (urbanized areas and infrastructures) (Socco 2005). The method does not let us identify constructions as elements of impact or qualifying elements; and is more closely related to calculating the visual integrity of an agricultural area.

The Lombardy Regional Authority has drawn up a method based on GIS to classify the Landscape significance of the territory on an exclusively cartographic basis: the significance is calculated as a mean of the values of morphology, vegetation and historical heritage, in the equivalent cells (Lombardy Regional Authority 2007, see Table 6.6).

Turin Polytechnic, in the Corona Verde project (a study on the Turin metropolitan area) proposed calculating the concept of imageability as a product of the density of morphological signs, water, vegetation, historical features, and scenic components such as picturesque and panoramic views and landmarks (Cassatella and Castelnovi 2007, see Box 6.1). The method used involves direct reconnaissance on the territory and the cross-referencing of variables using GIS for each landscape unit.

In Italy until today, studies and applications have concentrated on the assessment of environmental impact (in particular, visual impact ), and this creates a different prospect in the formulation of indexes and indicators, expressed in the form of a relationship between an element (the new intervention) and its context. In fact, EIA regulations on the “landscape” component, envisage “the strictly visual or cultural-semiological study of the relationship between the subject and the environment” (Prime Ministerial Decree 27/12/88). In the EIA manual of the Italian Association of Environmental Analyst (Colombo and Malcevschi 1999) perceptual indicators are classified in three fields: Generic perceptual, Perceptual from single points of view, Perceptual in relation to new interventions.

The verification of interventions in designated sites in terms of landscape compatibility , introduced by the new Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code (Italian Republic 2004 and s.m.i., Prime Ministerial Decree 12/12/2005) was a new impetus for studies of this type; the Ministry of National Heritage and Culture provided guidelines (Scazzosi and Di Bene 2006) with parameters on the evaluation of quality, criticality and alterations of the landscape. We propose a reworking in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Parameters for landscape assessment and modifications (reworking on Scazzosi and Di Bene 2006)
Full size table

All the above are based on expert analysis. We will now consider methods based on public opinion . As we will see, some of the same indicators are used, but with another subject expressing the opinion. Surveys on visual preferences were mainly developed in the late twenteith century and in particular in the USA in the 1970s. The method used by authors such as Kaplan and Kaplan, Appleton, Zube, Shafer, is still used as a reference to implement or falsify. They suggested that people prefer settings that support the need to understand their surrounding and, simultaneously, the need for exploration.

Numerous applicative and also comparative studies have been published in the journals ‘Environment & Behaviour’ and ‘Landscape and Urban Planning’ (for example Daniel 2001; Rogge et al. 2007). There are two main approaches: the first aims to obtain a holistic judgment on types of landscape, the second for components; this second method attempts to estimate landscape appreciation on the basis of the presence of certain elements or structures, correlating the declared preferences to land use structures. Some authors try to establish correlations with elements of landscape ecology (dimension of spots, length of perimeters and so on), therefore attempting to establish relations between two normally separate approaches (see, for example, Schüpbach 2003).

Table 6.2 Matrix of environmental preference (Kaplan et al. 1989)
Full size table

There are some indicators the use of which is generally accepted, and these are considered “predictors ” of preference, nevertheless, every form of research in the field redefines the set on the basis of the characteristics of the landscape observed. For this reason, it is not a good idea to isolate the single indicator, but better to think of them in groups, for example:

  • Legibility , coherence , complexity , mystery , prospect-refuge (Kaplan 1979)

  • Variety /unity, vividness/harmony , visual penetration, focality , complexity (in Daniel 2001)

  • Naturalness, vividness, variety , unity (Clay and Smidt 2004)

  • Naturalness, openness , maintenance , variety ; to which the parameters vegetation, buildings and human constructions, openness , maintenance or tidiness, agricultural crops and variety correspond (Rogge et al. 2007)

  • Wilderness, presence of well-preserved man-made elements, percentage of plant cover, amount of water, presence of mountains, colour contrast (Arriaza et al. 2004)

  • Unity, use, maintenance , naturalness, spaciousness , development in time, soil and water, sensory qualities (colour, smell) (Coeterier 1996)

  • Amount of nature, ruralness, calmness , unity/coherence , accessibility , historical identity , quietness, wide horizon, spontaneity of nature, water, relief (Farjon et al. 2009).

The latter studies are European; not by chance, “historical character” can only be found in these. The emphasis on naturalness is particularly relevant to methods developed in the forestry field. The set of attributes are determined culturally by national or continental factorsFootnote 3. In any case, generalizing and interpreting, the most common are: perceptual naturalness, visual openness, variety, vividness (brightness and contrast ), historicity and care (order , maintenance , cleaning).

One fundamental aspect of studies on landscape preferences is the choice of the sample, normally divided into groups; one of these groups can be the group of experts. These are undoubtedly useful for facilitating a comparison between the various groups, forcing them to clearly express (or have clarified) the implicit values of their judgements.

A Dutch study on the population’s appreciation of the landscape, done by Alterra on a national basis and set up to monitor the effectiveness of landscape policies in time (every three years), is worthy of note: the objective of the policies is a 25% increase in appreciation from 2007 to 2020 (Farjon et al. 2009, see the above parameters). The survey was done in 2006 on two samples, one representative of the social groups, and the other of the types of national landscape. The preferred physical characteristics (for example the openness of the horizon) where included in a map; in this way an appreciation model based on GIS lets us make forecasts on the impact of potential transformationsFootnote 4. Nevertheless, according to the authors, comparisons show that the GIS system is not very effective as a predictor, and surveys done using questionnaires are invaluable.

The refinement and diffusion of three-dimensional simulation models has also resulted in the use of renderings in surveys on visual preferences (Ode et al. 2010). Like photography, this medium also has limits of verisimilitude, and researchers have still to reach an agreement on the appropriateness of its use.

6.2.2 The Social Value of Landscape and the Relevant Indicators

As mentioned above, in this field there are only some experimental studies. First and foremost we should focus on studies that put the emphasis on the types of value attributed to landscape by social groups, to categorize the values in question, for example the research done by Luginbühl, Palang, the Landscape Observatory of Catalunya, and English Heritage.

Indicateurs sociaux du paysage (social indicators of landscape) is an essay by Luginbühl (2009). This refers to studies done in French Departments, based on interviews with town mayors, and one national survey, based on interviews with Conseillers généraux; politicians are therefore chosen on the basis of being representative of the respective community. The questions aim to highlight social landscape representations, the dynamics, and the practices of the stakeholders . In the first case, on a cartographical basis, the questionnaire indicates: landscapes of local interest, the transformation of local landscapes, landscape management projects. In the second, the questionnaire concerns : the interviewee, the landscape of the district and its evolution, as well as the landscape in general. We cannot refer to indicators in the strictest sense, but nevertheless, through statistical analyses (factor analyses of correspondence) key concepts emerge, preferences in relation to the landscape in general and certain types of landscape (almost models), which could probably be used subsequently as indicators.

Another French study, on a local scale however, concerning “Suisse normande” (Germaine 2008), the purpose of which is to obtain information on the identity of the place, is based on the same theoretical and methodological setup. The research involves three phases: characterization of the visible landscape (landscape diversity ), assessment of the residents’ and planners’ representations of landscape, description of the relations between the physical properties of the landscape and the perceptions of the stakeholders . The opinions are analysed using WordMapper© software to establish the word recurrence and associations; the iconography of places produced on a local scale (in particular for tourist promotion) is drawn up in a table to establish: citations, borders, characteristics, spaces used, activities.

A simpler method pursuant to iconography alone is used in the Piemonte landscape atlas (Cassatella 2007, see Box 6.2). Two groups of representations of regional landscapes are analysed: the images of Piemonte in wide-known publications on the Italian landscape, and those used by the Regional Tourist Agency. The result is data on the frequency of citations for the places and values associated with the images (in the form of morphological, naturalistic, historical-cultural, aesthetic, economic, disvalues). Fame (which is measured using a citation index) can therefore be used as an indicator to try and obtain an identitary value , but it will probably represent the point of view of outsiders rather than that of inhabitants.

Representativeness (“whether the landscape contains a particular character, and/or features and elements, which is felt by stakeholders to be worthy of representing”, Swanwick 2002) and “Associations with particular people, artists, writers, or other media, or events in history” (idem) are value criteria which are considered by Landscape Character Assessment.

The Catalan Regional Government landscape law considers various landscape values, including symbolic and identitary values , other intangible values and fruition values . Landscapes are assessed and indicators defined in the landscape cataloguing process of the Landscape observatory (Sala 2009). As the perceptual aspect is believed to be qualitative, “the catalogues avoid the hierarchization in levels of landscape quality and the quantification of its values” (Nogué 2008). The methods envisage in depth interviews and workshops, in the conviction that participatory processes in the choice of policies are facilitated by involvement in the early stages of drawing up the catalogues. The Observatory has published a volume Landscape Indicators on the theme (Nogué et al. 2009), proposing a set of 10 indicators; of these, the following are pertinent to the theme: knowledge of the landscape, landscape satisfaction, landscape sociability, landscape and communications. Furthermore, the two indicators regarding “the application of the landscape law” and “the public and private implementation on the protection, management and planning of landscapes”, can be associated with social sensitivity .

In England some values are already clearly expressed in policy statements, in particular with reference to the protection of the countryside. The studies can therefore progress from the postulation of the existence of common values, and concentrate on the methods for measuring the same. This is the case in studies on Tranquillity (see Table 6.8) , the social function of which for psychophysical wellbeing is ratified by the British Government’s Rural White Paper (Defra 2004), therefore this value is used locally in the assessments of plans. Developed in particular by the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Agency (2005), it is associated with wildness and naturalness, and the absence of urban influences (note that in this way the “tranquillity ” of small villages is not considered, even if relevant). Areas characterised by noise, visual intrusion, and recreational use are classified on the basis of measurable parameters, such as the distances from urban areas, roads, airports, to create a map of tranquil areas and vulnerable areas (tranquil areas with disturbances). The Countryside Agency (2005, cf. Haggett et al. 2009) proposes a more refined method, which attempts to consider which are the appreciated elements and which are the unwelcome elements for the local community, establishing criteria and influence on the basis of public surveys (direct interviews using questionnaires). The result is a Map of relative tranquillity , where “relative” means “locally significant”. In the application illustrated by Haggett et al. (with a certain level of complexity concerning the use of GIS with the cross-referencing of variables) the decisive factors are: human presence, some landscape characteristics (the perceptual naturalness) and noise. Once again this indicator is significant in an agricultural context, but not in an urban context.

One of the generally social functions attributed to landscape is the recreational function , and tourism in particular. The indicators can register current use, by indexes such as the presence of tourists or number of guests in holiday farms (MTT 2002), although it is hard to distinguish between the different reasons for which tourists choose a site for holidays. This is pursuant to the field of economic landscape assessment, covered in Chap. 8; here we will simply mention the fact that these techniques can be used to help estimate the values of use (for example tourist demand, residential demand), and to estimate the value attributed to landscape in itself and the conservation of the same (Marangon and Tempesta 2008). Economic analysis methods would seem to be promising in relation to the problem of estimating the social acknowledgement of landscapes in general terms, with due caution and preconditions; consider for example, an index such as the “percentage of agricultural products sold with the regional trademark” (Wascher 2000): this can only suggest the identitary value of a territory, if we assume there is a relationship between the image of the territory and the product.

Finally, we should mention a landscape indicator frequently adopted for many uses: the presence (or percentage) of listed/designated elements or sites. From the point of view of social perception , this is indicative of interest in protection; nevertheless, it is a static indicator with no parameters and threshold values.

6.2.3 Catalogue of Landscape Perception Indicators

Published indicators can be divided as follows:

  1. (a)

    Visual and multisensorial perception indicators (Table 6.3)

    • visibility

    • visual and perceptive detractors

    • relationship between new interventions and context

    • multisensoriality

    • characterization

    • parameters for the analysis of preferences

  2. (b)

    Social perception indicators (Table 6.4)

    • general and holistic

    • cultural, symbolic and identity value

    • fruition, recreational value

    • ratified value

    • social sensitivity

The name of the indicator was given by the author, while we provided the necessarily brief description; similar indicators or indicators with different names that refer to the same phenomenon have been grouped together. The source is the source from which the indicator was obtained, which may not always be the primary source, because many comparative studies were used, and some are so common they cannot be attributed to one single author.

Table 6.3 Catalogue of visual and multisensorial indicators
Full size table
Table 6.4 Catalogue of social perception indicators
Full size table

6.3 Proposal for Landscape Perception Indicators

The number of indicators found in literature is a sign of the diversity of use and the experimental phase the subject is currently going through, rather than a sign of rich content. Many of these “indicators” are unsuitable for formalization, and those that could be formalized and consolidated are only suitable for detailed assessment, typically for the assessment of visual impact for single works. In other cases, the problem with the indicator is that it has no thresholds of reference (for example, the total number of panoramic views is insignificant, while the variation in time may be of some significance).

When making a selection and a proposal we will consider the main aims of this study, in other words the application of the principles of the ELC, and the two chosen scales of reference (regional and local) (Table 6.5).

The indicator landscape diversity , clearly changed by ecology, but referring to perceptual diversity, is the most commonly mentioned and perhaps the only indicator that maintains the same meaning at any scale. Nevertheless, there are different measurement methods, both qualitative (based on the interpretation of signs and cultural elements) and quantitative, using the concept of the richness of heterogeneous objects. We propose using the term variety (Table 6.12), to avoid any implicit ambiguity in the expression “diversity” and the risk of confusion with the concept of “richness”, indicating some descriptors usedFootnote 5.

The attempts to assign a value of significance (Lombardy Regional Authority 2007) or imageability (Cassatella and Castelnovi 2007), cross-referencing the presence of signs from the built-up environment or vegetation, etc., go along the same lines; the latter includes the visual aspect, while the first is based on physical elements and measurements, and is of a significantly automated nature (Table 6.6 and 6.7).

The use of indicators on negative phenomena also seems to be effective, in other words on the loss of value of the landscape: for example obstruction of panoramic views or landmarksFootnote 6 (Table 6.10).

Of social values, fame has the advantage of being easy to verify (through an index of citation, although the choice of the field of observation remains open), certainly less problematic than verifying “identity” or identification in a landscape (Table 6.11). The frequency of citation can be measured through direct surveys (interviews), or using indirect methods, for example through a sample of representations (literary, artistic, journalism, web sites or using other means of communication). Depending on the sample chosen, we can obtain the point of view of the local community or more extensive or external groups, and using comparison (as in the Piemonte landscape atlas, Cassatella 2007, see Box 6.2) indications can emerge, in fact the indicator has no thresholds of reference and a relative meaning. For this reason it would seem to be more significant to observe the variation in time, which means having to choose a sample that can presumably be referred to at a later date (certain tourist guidebooks for example).

Of the numerous values that can be socially attributed to landscape, “tranquillity ” and “amenity ” represent two distinct and sometimes antithetical extremes, often subject to experimentation. On the theme of amenity , see the chapter on economic assessment. On the theme of tranquillity , we have already quoted British studies based on the rich Landscape Character Assessment knowledge-base and used throughout the territory, in all probability too onerous for many other contexts. Some elements associated with tranquillity can be extrapolated and used as indicators: in particular, the visibility of the sky at night and silence, which also make it possible to consider the multisensorial dimension of landscapeFootnote 7 (Table 6.9). The proposed indicator is therefore experimental, but may be based on available data and could be particularly significant if a new European Resolution is passed on the subject—current draft: “Noise and light pollution. Draft Resolution and Recommendation” (CoE 2010) (see Table 6.9).

Finally, we include tree canopy coverage in the list, as a suggestion to use in highly urbanized contexts, where the indicators for open landscape can be less significant (Table 6.13). In reality, this indicator is used in balances of environmental sustainability, but the proposed use is based on the assumption that a good level of coverage provided by the foliage is beneficial not only in ecological and climatic terms and to reduce atmospheric pollu tion, but also for the perception and aesthetic qualities of the urban landscape (in fact, the presence of vegetation is one of the most common predictors of visual preference).

In brief, the following indicators are proposed.

On a regional scale:

  • Variety

  • Landscape significance

  • Obstruction of views from viewpoints

  • Fame , variation in time

  • Visibility of the sky at night and silence (in other words the absence of pollution from lighting and noise)

On a local scale:

  • Variety

  • Imageability

  • Obstruction of views from viewpoints and of landmarks

  • Tranquillity

  • Amenity

  • Tree canopy coverage

Table 6.5 Proposed perceptual landscape indicators
Full size table
Table 6.6 Landscape significance
Full size table
Table 6.7 Imageability
Full size table
Table 6.8 Tranquillity
Full size table
Table 6.9 Visibility of the sky at night and silence
Full size table
Table 6.10 Obstruction of panoramic views
Full size table
Table 6.11 Fame (variation in time)
Full size table
Table 6.12 Variety or visual diversity
Full size table
Table 6.13 Tree canopy coverage
Full size table