IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v94y2020ics0264837719306088.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding rural landscape for better resident-led management: Residents’ perceptions on rural landscape as everyday landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Cha-Hee

Abstract

The rural landscape is “the dwelling place” of rural residents who generate a unique landscape through their daily activities. In order to strengthen the resident-led landscape management in rural areas, this study intends to gauge how and to what extent such rural landscapes are unique, as these landscapes are not easily appraised by existing landscape assessments that rely mainly on visual criteria, and suggest residents’ perception should be consider in the landscape planning. To conduct this study, residents’ subjective perceptions, in contrast with experts’ perceptions, were collected via a survey method referred to as photo-elicitation with walking. The survey revealed various everyday landscape objects perceived by the residents as meaningful, as well as scenes where visual characteristics were prominent. The results of survey also demonstrated that the residents are relatively insensitive to the visual and physical characteristics of landscapes objects, while sensitive to the “relationship” with the landscapes formed through the residents’ experiences. This pattern of sensitivity appears to be linked to the residents’ consideration of the landscape as a kinetic “dwelling place” rather than a static image. This pattern can be regarded as the reason residents perceive meaning in everyday landscapes. The results of this study suggest that by interpreting rural landscapes as everyday landscapes, landscape planning and management could be adapted to fit the needs and perceptions of rural residents and could, therefore, provide a basis for sustainable resident-led landscape management methods in connection with the everyday lives of rural residents.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Cha-Hee, 2020. "Understanding rural landscape for better resident-led management: Residents’ perceptions on rural landscape as everyday landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:94:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719306088
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104565
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719306088
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104565?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jallouli, J. & Moreau, G., 2009. "An immersive path-based study of wind turbines' landscape: A French case in Plouguin," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 597-607.
    2. Hannah Macpherson, 2016. "Walking methods in landscape research: moving bodies, spaces of disclosure and rapport," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 425-432, May.
    3. Mark Bhatti & Andrew Church & Amanda Claremont, 2014. "Peaceful, Pleasant and Private: The British Domestic Garden as an Ordinary Landscape," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 40-52, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jae-hyuck Lee & Do-kyun Kim, 2020. "Mapping Environmental Conflicts Using Spatial Text Mining," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, August.
    2. Hana Vavrouchová & Petra Fukalová & Hana Svobodová & Jan Oulehla & Pavla Pokorná, 2021. "Mapping Landscape Values and Conflicts through the Optics of Different User Groups," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Lulu Qu & Yurui Li & Yunxin Huang & Xuanchang Zhang & Jilai Liu, 2021. "Analysis of the Spatial Variations of Determinants of Gully Agricultural Production Transformation in the Chinese Loess Plateau and Its Policy Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Chunyang Zhang & Junjie Chen, 2023. "Spatial Morphology Optimization of Rural Planning Based on Space of Flow: An Empirical Study of Zepan Village in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, April.
    5. Ziyu Jia & Yan Jiao & Wei Zhang & Zheng Chen, 2022. "Rural Tourism Competitiveness and Development Mode, a Case Study from Chinese Township Scale Using Integrated Multi-Source Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Zongfeng Chen & Xueqi Liu & Zhi Lu & Yurui Li, 2021. "The Expansion Mechanism of Rural Residential Land and Implications for Sustainable Regional Development: Evidence from the Baota District in China’s Loess Plateau," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Binglu Wu & Wenzhuo Liang & Jiening Wang & Dongxu Cui, 2022. "Rural Residents’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services: A Study from Three Topographic Areas in Shandong Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrews, Gavin J. & Duff, Cameron, 2020. "‘Whole onflow’, the productive event: an articulation through health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    2. Katsaprakakis, Dimitris Al., 2012. "A review of the environmental and human impacts from wind parks. A case study for the Prefecture of Lasithi, Crete," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 2850-2863.
    3. Azraff Bin Rozmi, Mohd Daniel & Thirunavukkarasu, Gokul Sidarth & Jamei, Elmira & Seyedmahmoudian, Mehdi & Mekhilef, Saad & Stojcevski, Alex & Horan, Ben, 2019. "Role of immersive visualization tools in renewable energy system development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    4. Manchado, Cristina & Gomez-Jauregui, Valentin & Otero, César, 2015. "A review on the Spanish Method of visual impact assessment of wind farms: SPM2," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 756-767.
    5. Josimović, Boško & Pucar, Mila, 2010. "The strategic environmental impact assessment of electric wind energy plants: Case study ‘Bavanište’ (Serbia)," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1509-1519.
    6. Beata J. Gawryszewska & Izabela Myszka & Michał Banaszek & Axel Schwerk, 2023. "Periurban Streetscape—Vernacular Front Gardens and Their Potential to Provide Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Warsaw, Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Bevk, Tadej & Golobič, Mojca, 2020. "Contentious eye-catchers: Perceptions of landscapes changed by solar power plants in Slovenia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 999-1010.
    8. Jorge Cruz-Cárdenas & Nora H. Oleas, 2018. "Private Urban Garden Satisfaction and Its Determinants in Quito, Ecuador," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(1), pages 21582440187, March.
    9. Tabassum-Abbasi, & Premalatha, M. & Abbasi, Tasneem & Abbasi, S.A., 2014. "Wind energy: Increasing deployment, rising environmental concerns," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 270-288.
    10. Bishop, Ian D. & Stock, Christian, 2010. "Using collaborative virtual environments to plan wind energy installations," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2348-2355.
    11. Teisl, Mario F. & Noblet, Caroline L. & Corey, Richard R. & Giudice, Nicholas A., 2018. "Seeing clearly in a virtual reality: Tourist reactions to an offshore wind project," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 601-611.
    12. Satomi Kohyama & Ryo Kohsaka, 2024. "Wind farms in contested landscapes: Procedural and scale gaps of wind power facility constructions in Japan," Energy & Environment, , vol. 35(3), pages 1396-1415, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:94:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719306088. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.