Section

Economic, social, political and recreational geography

Title

PERCEPTION FEATURES OF LANDSCAPES: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF ESTHETIC ASSESSMENT OF GEOIMAGES

Сontributors

A. Yu. Bibaeva, Engineer, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

A. K. Cherkashin, Ph. D. (Geography), Dr. Habil, Professor, head of laboratory, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The V. B. Sochava Institute of Geography SB RAS

Abstract

One of the important indicators of the landscape is the aesthetic quality as a complex property that is defined by its other complex properties which are individually assessed by observers. Distance internet survey using images of coastal landscapes of lake Hovsgol (Mongolia) was carried out. Characteristics of complex aesthetic qualities of the landscape (diversity, harmony, exoticism, uniqueness and so on) were defined and then the regres-sion dependences of the final aesthetic evaluations of these characteristics, taking 89 % of the variability into account, were calculated. Linear multiple regression coef-ficients depend on the characteristics of the landscape image, i.e. landscape controls the parameters of perception. Such linear dependence forms a congruence as bundle of functions which are formed around the invariant center that allows to convert one relationship of aesthetic quality to another for different landscapes.

Keywords

complex property, multiple regression analysis, congruence, aesthetic judgment, survey.

References

1.  Appleton J. Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Transactions of the Institute of British geographers. 1975. V. 66. P. 120—123.

2.  Briggs D. J., France J. Landscape Evaluation: A comparative study. Journal of Environmental Management. 1980. V. 10. P. 263—275.

3.  Dearden P. Philosophy, theory, and method in landscape evaluation. Canadian Geographer. 1985. V. 29. P. 263—265.

4.  Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment. The landscape institute with the institute of environmental man-agement. London, New York: Spon press and Taylor and Francis group, 2005. 166 p.

5.  Zube E. H., Sell J. I., Taylor J. G. Landscape perception: research application, and theory. Landscape planning. 1982. V. 9. P. 1—33.

6.  Ishizu T., Zeki S. Toward a brain-based theory of beauty. PLoS ONE 6 (7), 2011. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1317077/ 1/1317077.pdf

7.  Bell C. Art. London: Chatto and windus, 1921. 292 p.

8.  Birkhoff G. Aesthetic measure. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933. 292 p.

9.  Kolbovsky Е. Ju., Bragin P. N., Medovikova U. А. Estimation of Anthropogenous Impact on Aesthetic Qualities of Landscapes. Yaroslavl pedagogical Bulletin. 2012. No. 1. V. 3. P. 224—231.

10. Bibaeva A. Yu. The sequence of procedures of geoinformational analysis and synthesis of geoimages for mapping the landscapes of Northeast lake Hovsgol's area. Geodesy and cartography. 2011. No. 5. P. 19—27.

11. Demkin A. D. Aesthetic human reaction to a work of art // Proceedings of Russian scientific-practical conference “Clinical Psychology: results, problems and perspectives”. S-P: LSU by A. S. Pushkina, 2010. http://www.town812.ru

12. Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of en-vironmental management. 1980. V. 11. P. 61—76.

13. Brush R. O., Shafer E. L. Application of a landscape-preference model to land management. Landscape assessment: values, perceptions and resources. Halstead press, 1975. P. 168—181.

14. Frolova M. Y. Assessment of aesthetic advantages of natural landscapes. MSU. Series 5, Geography. 1994. No. 2. P. 27—33.

15. Eringis K. I., Budryunas A.-R. A. The essence and methods of detailed ecological and aesthetic studies of landscapes. Ecol-ogy and Esthetics of landscapes. Vilnius: Minthis, 1975. P. 107—159.

16. Esthetics: dictionary / edited by A. A. Belyaeva, L. I. Novikovoy, V. I. Tolstyh. M.: Politizdat, 1989. P. 416—419.

17. Cherkashin A. K. and Bibaeva A. Yu. Scenery as the embodiment of the functional-dynamical properties of landscape. Ge-ography and natural resources. 2013. No. 4. P. 157—165.