Influence of landscape heterogeneity on scenic quality: The case of the Andean foothills of the Santiago basin.
Keywords:
Landscape preference, landscape heterogeneity, landscape visual qualityAbstract
The landscape transformation in Centra Chile shows the developments of studies that permit quaintly the landscape quality, keeping in mind its multiple functions: economic, ecological, and aesthetics. This article explores the relation of the landscape preferences with the visual configuration of the perceived image and its spatial structure. For doing this, a group of photography’s of the precordillerano Andean of Santiago Landscape has been evaluated according to its Scenic Beauty, and the degree of Complexity and Diversity perceived by a group of university students. Later a digital analysis of the visual configuration of every image was carried out. In addition, the study of the spatial structure of the territory where every photograph was taken was analyzed through the software Fragstats. Positive and significant relations have been obtained, at the three levels of analyses of the landscape. This correspondence suggests implications that can add new elements to the present debate around the management of the precordillerano Andean of Santiago landscape.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
AOKI, A. Review article: trends in the study of the psychological evaluation of landscape. landscape Research, 1999, nº 4(1), p. 85-94.
APPLETON, J. The experience of Landscape.Londres: John Wiley and Sons, 1975.
ARMESTO, J.; VILLAGRÁN, C. y KALIN, M. Ecología de Los Bosques Nativos de Chile. Editorial Universitaria, 1996.
BALDWIN, J.; FISHER, P.; WOOD, J. and LANGFORD. M. Modelling environmental cognition o the view with GIS. In Proceedings, Third International Conference Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modelling.Santa Fe, NM, January 2(-26, (996. Santa Barbara, CA: National Center or Geographic Information and Analysis. CD.
BELL, S. Landscape pattern, perception and visualization in the visual management of forests. landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, nº 54, p. 201-211.
BERLYNE, D. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. Nueva York: McGraw-Hi, 1960.
BERNÁLDEZ, F. Invitación a la Ecología Humana. La adaptación afectiva al entorno. Madrid: Tecnos, 1985.
BISHOP, I.; WHERRETT, J. and MILLER, D. Assessment o patch choices on a country walk using a virtual environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, nº 52, p. 225-237.
BISHOP, I. Comparing regression and neural net-based approaches to modeling of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1996, nº 30, p. 59-70.
BISQUERRA, R. Métodos de investigación educativa. Guía práctica. Barcelona: CFAC, 1989.
DE LA FUENTE, G. Análisis de Escenarios Paisajísticos y Medidas de Calidad Escénica. Estudio de Casos: La sierra de Guadarrama (Madrid, España y La precordillera andina Santiago, Chile. Tesis Doctoral. Facultad de Ciencias. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2002.
CHUVIECO, F. Empleo de imágenes de satélite para medir a estructura de paisaje: análisis cuantitativo y representación cartográfica. Serie Geográfica, 1996, nº 6, p. 131-147.
DANIEL, T. Wither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, nº 56, p. 267–281.
DE LUCIO, J.V. y GÓMEZ-LIMÓN, J. Percepción de la Diversidad Paisajística. En PINEDA, F., DF MIGUEL, J.; CASADO, M. y MONTALVO, F. "a Diversidad Biológica de España. Madrid: Pearson Educación S.A, 2002, p. 101-110.
DEARDEN, P. Consensus and a theoretical framework or landscape evaluation. Journal Environmental Management, 1987, nº 34, p. 267-278.
FASTMAN, R. IDAISI: A GAID Based Geographic Analysis System. Worcester: Clark University, 1997.
FRANCES, R. Psychologie de l’art et de L’esthétique. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1968.
FRANCO, D.; DF FRANCO, D.;
MANNINO, I. and ZANETTO, G. The impact o agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: The role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. landscape and Urban Planning, 2003, nº 62, p. 119-138.
FUENTES, F. ¿Qué futuro tienen nuestros bosques? Hacia Ka gestión sustentable del paisaje del centro y sur de Chile. 1º Ed. Santiago: Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile, 1994.
GILFS, J. and TRANI, M. Key elements o landscape pattern measures. Environmental Management, 1999, n° 23(4), p. 477-481.
GOSBTER, P. and CHENOWETH, R. The dimensions of aesthetic preference: a quantitative analysis. Journal Environment Management, 1989, nº 29, p. 47-72.
HAGFRHALL, C.; PURCELL, T. and TAYLOR, R. Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2004, nº 24, p. 247-255.
HAGERHALL, C. Consensus in landscape preference judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2001, nº 21, p. 83-92.
HERZOG, F. and SHIER, R. Complexity, age and building preference. Environment Behavior, 2000, nº 32 (4), p. 557-575.
HUNZIKER, M. and KIENAST, F. Impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty– a prototype of an automated rapid assessment technique. "Landscape Ecology, 1999, nº 14, p.161-761.
KAPLAN, R., KAPLAN, S. and RAAN, R. With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Washington: Is and Press, 1998.
KAPLAN S. and KAPLAN R. Cognition and environment: functioning in an uncertain work. Nueva York: Preager, 1982.
LOTHIAN, A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning, 1999, nº 44, p. 177-198.
LUZ, F. Participatory landscape ecology: A basis or acceptance and implementation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2000, nº 50, p. 157-166.
LYNCH, K. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960.
MARGALEF, R. Teoría de los sistemas ecológicos. Barcelona: Publicaciones de a Universitat de Barcelona, 1991.
MCGARIGAL, K. and MARKS, B.J. FRAGSTATS. Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying Landscape structure. Genera Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, USDA Forest Service, 1995.
NASSAUER, J. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecology, 1992, nº 6(4), p. 239-250.
ORIANS, G. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In Penning- Rowsell, F. y Lowenthal, D. Landscape meanings and values. Londres: A en and Unwin, 1986, p. 3-5.
PALMA, H. Medición en fotografías aéreas usando fractales. Quebracho, 1999, nº 7, p. 6(-
66.
PETERSON, G. Evaluating the quality of the wilderness environment. Environment Behavior, 1974, nº 6, p. 169 - 193.
PALMER, J. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. "Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004, nº 69, p. 201-218.
PALMER, J. Stability of landscape perceptions in the ace of landscape change. "Landscape and Urban Planning, 1997, nº 37, p. 109-113.
PURCELL, T.; PERON, F. and BERTO, R. Why do preference di er between scene types? Environment Behavior, 2001, nº 33 (1), p. 93-106.
PURCELL, T. and LAMB, R. Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape Urban Planning, 1998, nº 42, p. 57-66.
SALDAÑA, J.; PUERTO, A. y GARCÍA, J. FK paisaje. Un estudio ecológico de su diversidad en ecosistemas salmantinos. Salamanca: Diputación de Salamanca, 1986.
SCOTT, A. Assessing public perception of landscape: The LANDMAP experience. Landscape research, 2002, nº 27(3), p. 271-295.
STAATS, H.; GATERSLEBEN, B. and HARTIG, T. Change in mood as a function o environmental design arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. Journal Environmental Psychology, 1997, nº 17, p. 283-300.
STAMPS, A. A paradigm or distinguishing significant from nosignificant visual impacts: theory implementation, case histories. Environmental Impact Assessment Rev, 1997, nº 17, p. 249-293.
STEINITZ, C. Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the Loop Road in Acadia National Park, U.S.A. "landscape and Urban Planning, 1990, nº 19, p. 213-250.
WIENS, J. Landscape mosaics and ecological theory. Fn HANSSON, L.; FAHRIG, L. and MFRRAIM, G. Mosaics "landscape and Ecological Processes. Londres: Chapman and Ha , 1995, p. 110-126.
WILSON, F. Biophilia. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1984.
ZUBF, F. Perceived and use patterns and landscape values. "landscape Ecology, 1987, nº (11), p. 37-45.
APPLETON, J. The experience of Landscape.Londres: John Wiley and Sons, 1975.
ARMESTO, J.; VILLAGRÁN, C. y KALIN, M. Ecología de Los Bosques Nativos de Chile. Editorial Universitaria, 1996.
BALDWIN, J.; FISHER, P.; WOOD, J. and LANGFORD. M. Modelling environmental cognition o the view with GIS. In Proceedings, Third International Conference Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modelling.Santa Fe, NM, January 2(-26, (996. Santa Barbara, CA: National Center or Geographic Information and Analysis. CD.
BELL, S. Landscape pattern, perception and visualization in the visual management of forests. landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, nº 54, p. 201-211.
BERLYNE, D. Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. Nueva York: McGraw-Hi, 1960.
BERNÁLDEZ, F. Invitación a la Ecología Humana. La adaptación afectiva al entorno. Madrid: Tecnos, 1985.
BISHOP, I.; WHERRETT, J. and MILLER, D. Assessment o patch choices on a country walk using a virtual environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, nº 52, p. 225-237.
BISHOP, I. Comparing regression and neural net-based approaches to modeling of scenic beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1996, nº 30, p. 59-70.
BISQUERRA, R. Métodos de investigación educativa. Guía práctica. Barcelona: CFAC, 1989.
DE LA FUENTE, G. Análisis de Escenarios Paisajísticos y Medidas de Calidad Escénica. Estudio de Casos: La sierra de Guadarrama (Madrid, España y La precordillera andina Santiago, Chile. Tesis Doctoral. Facultad de Ciencias. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 2002.
CHUVIECO, F. Empleo de imágenes de satélite para medir a estructura de paisaje: análisis cuantitativo y representación cartográfica. Serie Geográfica, 1996, nº 6, p. 131-147.
DANIEL, T. Wither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, nº 56, p. 267–281.
DE LUCIO, J.V. y GÓMEZ-LIMÓN, J. Percepción de la Diversidad Paisajística. En PINEDA, F., DF MIGUEL, J.; CASADO, M. y MONTALVO, F. "a Diversidad Biológica de España. Madrid: Pearson Educación S.A, 2002, p. 101-110.
DEARDEN, P. Consensus and a theoretical framework or landscape evaluation. Journal Environmental Management, 1987, nº 34, p. 267-278.
FASTMAN, R. IDAISI: A GAID Based Geographic Analysis System. Worcester: Clark University, 1997.
FRANCES, R. Psychologie de l’art et de L’esthétique. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1968.
FRANCO, D.; DF FRANCO, D.;
MANNINO, I. and ZANETTO, G. The impact o agroforestry networks on scenic beauty estimation: The role of a landscape ecological network on a socio-cultural process. landscape and Urban Planning, 2003, nº 62, p. 119-138.
FUENTES, F. ¿Qué futuro tienen nuestros bosques? Hacia Ka gestión sustentable del paisaje del centro y sur de Chile. 1º Ed. Santiago: Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile, 1994.
GILFS, J. and TRANI, M. Key elements o landscape pattern measures. Environmental Management, 1999, n° 23(4), p. 477-481.
GOSBTER, P. and CHENOWETH, R. The dimensions of aesthetic preference: a quantitative analysis. Journal Environment Management, 1989, nº 29, p. 47-72.
HAGFRHALL, C.; PURCELL, T. and TAYLOR, R. Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2004, nº 24, p. 247-255.
HAGERHALL, C. Consensus in landscape preference judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2001, nº 21, p. 83-92.
HERZOG, F. and SHIER, R. Complexity, age and building preference. Environment Behavior, 2000, nº 32 (4), p. 557-575.
HUNZIKER, M. and KIENAST, F. Impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty– a prototype of an automated rapid assessment technique. "Landscape Ecology, 1999, nº 14, p.161-761.
KAPLAN, R., KAPLAN, S. and RAAN, R. With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Washington: Is and Press, 1998.
KAPLAN S. and KAPLAN R. Cognition and environment: functioning in an uncertain work. Nueva York: Preager, 1982.
LOTHIAN, A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning, 1999, nº 44, p. 177-198.
LUZ, F. Participatory landscape ecology: A basis or acceptance and implementation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2000, nº 50, p. 157-166.
LYNCH, K. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960.
MARGALEF, R. Teoría de los sistemas ecológicos. Barcelona: Publicaciones de a Universitat de Barcelona, 1991.
MCGARIGAL, K. and MARKS, B.J. FRAGSTATS. Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying Landscape structure. Genera Technical Report PNW-GTR-351, USDA Forest Service, 1995.
NASSAUER, J. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecology, 1992, nº 6(4), p. 239-250.
ORIANS, G. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In Penning- Rowsell, F. y Lowenthal, D. Landscape meanings and values. Londres: A en and Unwin, 1986, p. 3-5.
PALMA, H. Medición en fotografías aéreas usando fractales. Quebracho, 1999, nº 7, p. 6(-
66.
PETERSON, G. Evaluating the quality of the wilderness environment. Environment Behavior, 1974, nº 6, p. 169 - 193.
PALMER, J. Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts. "Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004, nº 69, p. 201-218.
PALMER, J. Stability of landscape perceptions in the ace of landscape change. "Landscape and Urban Planning, 1997, nº 37, p. 109-113.
PURCELL, T.; PERON, F. and BERTO, R. Why do preference di er between scene types? Environment Behavior, 2001, nº 33 (1), p. 93-106.
PURCELL, T. and LAMB, R. Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape Urban Planning, 1998, nº 42, p. 57-66.
SALDAÑA, J.; PUERTO, A. y GARCÍA, J. FK paisaje. Un estudio ecológico de su diversidad en ecosistemas salmantinos. Salamanca: Diputación de Salamanca, 1986.
SCOTT, A. Assessing public perception of landscape: The LANDMAP experience. Landscape research, 2002, nº 27(3), p. 271-295.
STAATS, H.; GATERSLEBEN, B. and HARTIG, T. Change in mood as a function o environmental design arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. Journal Environmental Psychology, 1997, nº 17, p. 283-300.
STAMPS, A. A paradigm or distinguishing significant from nosignificant visual impacts: theory implementation, case histories. Environmental Impact Assessment Rev, 1997, nº 17, p. 249-293.
STEINITZ, C. Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high ecological integrity: the Loop Road in Acadia National Park, U.S.A. "landscape and Urban Planning, 1990, nº 19, p. 213-250.
WIENS, J. Landscape mosaics and ecological theory. Fn HANSSON, L.; FAHRIG, L. and MFRRAIM, G. Mosaics "landscape and Ecological Processes. Londres: Chapman and Ha , 1995, p. 110-126.
WILSON, F. Biophilia. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1984.
ZUBF, F. Perceived and use patterns and landscape values. "landscape Ecology, 1987, nº (11), p. 37-45.
Downloads
How to Cite
DE LA FUENTE DE VAL, G., ATAURI M, J., DE LUCIO F, J., & MÜHLHAUSER S, H. . (2021). Influence of landscape heterogeneity on scenic quality: The case of the Andean foothills of the Santiago basin. Revista De Geografía Norte Grande, (32), 87–105. Retrieved from https://revistanortegrande.uc.cl/index.php/RGNG/article/view/43647
Issue
Section
Artículos
