IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i23p4754-d291483.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparisons of Landscape Preferences through Three Different Perceptual Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Tian Gao

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, Shaanxi, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Huiyi Liang

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, Shaanxi, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yuxuan Chen

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, Shaanxi, China)

  • Ling Qiu

    (College of Landscape Architecture and Arts, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang 712100, Shaanxi, China)

Abstract

In order to identify the effects and divergences of the different landscape perception approaches on landscape preference, this study investigated people’s preferences for urban green spaces with different vegetation structures in the early spring through using three approaches, which were on-site survey, photo elicitation and VR technology. The results showed that: (a) There were significant differences among the three approaches for landscape preference, among which there was a significant difference between VR technology and the other two approaches, while no differences between on-site survey and photo elicitation were found. (b) The respondents showed significant differences in their preferences for the urban green spaces with the different vegetation structures through VR technology, and the semi-open green space received the highest preference score. (c) Whatever the approach employed, there were no significant differences in gender and professional background groups for landscape preference. (d) In the comparisons of the three different approaches, the respondents were more willing to choose physical recreational activities to be conducted in the early spring. Based on the above results, the three approaches of landscape perception were divergent and irreplaceable. It is, thus, suggested that the approach of landscape perception should be carefully selected for a specific landscape in a certain season, so as to provide a scientific basis for the evaluation of landscape perception and preference in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Tian Gao & Huiyi Liang & Yuxuan Chen & Ling Qiu, 2019. "Comparisons of Landscape Preferences through Three Different Perceptual Approaches," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-13, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:23:p:4754-:d:291483
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/23/4754/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/23/4754/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dafna Fisher-Gewirtzman, 2018. "Perception of density by pedestrians on urban paths: an experiment in virtual reality," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5), pages 674-692, September.
    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. Yifan Duan & Shuhua Li, 2022. "Effects of Plant Communities on Human Physiological Recovery and Emotional Reactions: A Comparative Onsite Survey and Photo Elicitation Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Kinga Kimic & Paulina Polko, 2022. "The Use of Urban Parks by Older Adults in the Context of Perceived Security," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Xinyi Chen & Yuyang Wang & Tao Huang & Zhengsong Lin, 2022. "Research on Digital Experience and Satisfaction Preference of Plant Community Design in Urban Green Space," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Xinhui Fei & Yanqin Zhang & Deyi Kong & Qitang Huang & Minhua Wang & Jianwen Dong, 2023. "Quantitative Model Study of the Psychological Recovery Benefit of Landscape Environment Based on Eye Movement Tracking Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Gianni Talamini & Ting Liu & Roula El-Khoury & Di Shao, 2023. "Visibility and symbolism of corporate architecture: A multi-method approach for visual impact assessment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(9), pages 2407-2429, November.
    6. Liyuan Liang & Like Gobeawan & Siu-Kit Lau & Ervine Shengwei Lin & Kai Keng Ang, 2024. "Urban Green Spaces and Mental Well-Being: A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing Virtual Reality versus Real Nature," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-16, May.
    7. Jose Luis Saorin & Carlos Carbonell-Carrera & Allison J. Jaeger & Dámari Melián Díaz, 2023. "Landscape Design Outdoor–Indoor VR Environments User Experience," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    8. Esther van Vliet & Gamze Dane & Minou Weijs-Perrée & Eveline van Leeuwen & Mayke van Dinter & Pauline van den Berg & Aloys Borgers & Kynthia Chamilothori, 2020. "The Influence of Urban Park Attributes on User Preferences: Evaluation of Virtual Parks in an Online Stated-Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-20, December.

    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. Haeryung Lee & Seung-Nam Kim, 2021. "Perceived Safety and Pedestrian Performance in Pedestrian Priority Streets (PPSs) in Seoul, Korea: A Virtual Reality Experiment and Trace Mapping," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Jaecheol Kim & Seungnam Kim, 2019. "Finding the Optimal D/H Ratio for an Enclosed Urban Square: Testing an Urban Design Principle Using Immersive Virtual Reality Simulation Techniques," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Roei Yosifof & Dafna Fisher-Gewirtzman, 2024. "Hybrid quantitative mesoscale analyses for simulating pedestrians’ visual perceptions: Comparison of three New York City streets," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 51(1), pages 140-156, January.
    4. Liang Wen & Jeffrey Kenworthy & Dora Marinova, 2020. "Higher Density Environments and the Critical Role of City Streets as Public Open Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-34, October.
    5. Shereen Wael & Abeer Elshater & Samy Afifi, 2022. "Mapping User Experiences around Transit Stops Using Computer Vision Technology: Action Priorities from Cairo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, September.
    6. Fang Xu, 2022. "Evaluating dynamic visual experience of designed environments: A real-time 3D simulation method utilizing game technologies," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(3), pages 866-882, March.
    7. UnHyo Kim & Jeongwoo Lee & Sylvia Y. He, 2021. "Pedestrianization Impacts on Air Quality Perceptions and Environment Satisfaction: The Case of Regenerated Streets in Downtown Seoul," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-16, September.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:23:p:4754-:d:291483. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.