2 KEY ISSUES IN LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL 

        2.1       INTRODUCTION

        2.1.1     The issue of appraising and evaluating landscapes is one around which a considerable literature has developed over the last 40 years and is arguably the most discussed area in the field of landscape assessment and planning. In the field of landscape appraisal, there are numerous terms and concepts which appear to be similar and discussion of this field has often be confused due to misunderstanding of terms and concepts. Therefore, this section of the report will:

        2.2        TERMINOLOGY                                     

        2.2.1     It is important to define and distinguish between two key concepts in the field of landscape assessment.

                    Landscape Appraisal

        2.2.2     Landscape appraisal can be defined as the process of applying set criteria to a particular landscape, landscape type or landscape feature. These criteria can be reasonably objective (e.g. condition, character) or can be more subjective (e.g. value).

                    Landscape Evaluation

        2.2.3     Landscape evaluation can be defined as the process of 'identifying the importance of a particular landscape, landscape type or landscape feature, by reference to specified value criteria'. Landscape evaluation is therefore one form of landscape appraisal. In order to evaluate landscape therefore, it is necessary to identify value criteria against which value can be determined.

        2.3       KEY ISSUES IN LANDSCAPE APPRAISAL

        2.3.1     Having clarified key terms associated with the field of landscape evaluation, this section of the report will discuss the key issues and decisions which need to be made before a system for appraising landscape can be developed. 

                    Different Types of Landscape Appraisal

        2.3.2     Several ways of ascribing importance to landscape have emerged and are identified by the UK Countryside Agency (1999, p.76). These are appraisal of:

        2.3.3     Landscape character is what makes one landscape different from another. It refers to the distinctive and recognisable pattern of features which makes one landscape type unique. Using an appraisal of landscape character, it is only viable to compare two landscape units of the same type, as assessment criteria are not applicable between landscapes of different types. This is because the criteria which define landscape character are unique to any given LCT and cannot therefore be compared with those (different) criteria that define another LCT.

        2.3.4     Landscape value refers to why we attach importance to landscape and how much importance we attach to that landscape. Landscapes may be valued because they are in good condition, have scenic characteristics or express important ecological, cultural or heritage interests. An assessment of landscape value allows the comparison of two landscapes of the same type, but also comparison of two landscapes of different types, as the same value criteria are applicable between landscapes of different types.                                     

        2.3.5     Landscape condition is related to landscape character and is the index of the integrity or intactness of the basic pattern of landscape features, which constitute the landscape character of that type. An appraisal of landscape condition allows the comparison of two landscapes of the same type, but also comparison of two landscapes of different types. This is because the criterion of 'intactness of landscape pattern' is applicable between landscapes of different types, even though those patterns are different. Note that condition is both a stand-alone means of appraisal but is also a component of landscape value.

        2.3.6     Landscape sensitivity may be defined as a landscape's ability to tolerate change without compromise to its fundamental character. Sensitivity is not absolute, but varies according to the type of change being considered. Landscape sensitivity is a concept quite distinct from landscape value. As the Countryside Agency states, sensitivity "must be judged separately from quality and /or value because they are quite different. So for example [a landscape] may be considered to be of high quality for its type, but it still has low sensitivity when it comes to accepting change." (Countryside Agency, 1999, p.82). An example of a landscape which might be considered to be of high value but low sensitivity would be a landscape with considerable landform diversity, significant areas of vegetation and variety of land use would enable it to absorb development far more easily than for example, an open, monotonous, low-lying landscape. An assessment of landscape sensitivity allows the comparison of two landscapes of the same type, but also comparison of two landscapes of different types, as the same criteria (e.g. sensitivity to road development’ or 'sensitivity to industrial development') are equally applicable between landscapes of different types.

        2.3.7     It is essential to an understanding of the appraisal process, to distinguish between landscape value and the other bases of appraisal identified above. The process of appraisal developed for any given landscape assessment study, should correspond to the fundamental objectives and outputs of that Study.

        2.3.8     The UK Countryside Agency has identified four principal methods of appraisal, which correspond to four different objectives of landscape studies. These are set out in Table 2.1.

        2.3.9     Where design guidelines are to be developed, landscape character is an appropriate basis of appraisal, because in order to derive guidelines, it is important to know what the basic pattern of landscape features is and how future development should relate to them.

       2.3.10    Where the objective of the Study is the designation of relative values to landscapes, an assessment of landscape value will be appropriate, which allows the comparison of landscapes of different types on a like-for-like basis, using a set of criteria which can be applied equally to any kind of landscape.

       2.3.11    Where a landscape management strategy is the proposed output of the assessment study, an appraisal of landscape condition will be appropriate because in order to derive management guidelines for the restoration, enhancement, conservation, etc of a landscape, it is necessary to know its existing condition.

       2.3.12    Finally, where the objective of the assessment is to identify the development capacity of landscape, an appraisal of sensitivity will be appropriate as it is necessary to know how easily affected a landscape's character will be to a given change.

       2.3.13    For this Study, the objectives of Technical Report No.2 are those set out in Para 3.2 of the Brief:

  1. "Establish consistent evaluative criteria which will allow measurement and evaluation of the sensitivity and importance of landscape character types and areas;

  2. Recommend a suitable indicator for broad landscape impact assessment of major development projects which can be incorporated in the sustainability evaluation process"

       2.3.14    It is assumed for these purposes that the term "importance" is a synonym for "value".                    

       2.3.15    The Countryside Agency does not specifically identify the basis of appraisal needed where an indicator is the required output of an assessment Study, but states that "Indicators need to provide a good indication of change of character" (Countryside Agency, 1999, p.82). Certainly this implies that an appraisal of at least landscape character and landscape condition is the basis for the production of indicators.

       2.3.16    Therefore, the three key outputs of this stage of the Study are:

                    Intrinsic and Extrinsic Value in Landscape

       2.3.17    It is important to draw a distinction between two types of values in the appraisal of landscapes. They can be defined as follows:

       2.3.18    It is important to note that whilst a given landscape may have very high intrinsic values, that relative to other human objectives (its extrinsic value), its value may be low. The issue of extrinsic landscape values is fundamentally a political decision. Therefore, the decision to develop a road through a landscape of high intrinsic value may be justified by reference to its low relative (or extrinsic) value when compared to benefits that would accrue to society in terms of mobility and economic growth. Similarly, to argue that a landscape is not valuable because for example, 'Hong Kong needs jobs more than landscape' are not arguments about the intrinsic merit of that landscape, but about the extrinsic values of landscape relative to other human objectives.                   

       2.3.19    For this reason issues of 'adequacy' or 'sufficiency' of landscape are expressions of extrinsic landscape values, as is the development of SUSDEV21 targets. These issues are not wholly technical decisions and will not be addressed by this Study.

       2.3.20    This report will therefore show how a set of intrinsic landscape value criteria can be derived and assigned to landscape character types/landscape character areas, and ultimately used to develop landscape indicators.

                    Visual and Non-Visual values in Landscape

       2.3.21    Crucial to an understanding of intrinsic landscape values is an appreciation that not all landscape values are necessarily visual.(1)

       2.3.22    Until the latter part of the last century, it was commonly believed that landscape was a field of endeavour which relied purely on visual or aesthetic values and in which the ultimate criterion was the personal taste of the individual. As the UK Countryside Commission has stated, "Subjective approaches were highly developed in the 18th Century when theories were developed about landscape taste..." (Countryside Commission, 1987, para.2.4).                   

       2.3.23    However, as early as the late 19th Century, there was a realisation amongst planner/landscape architects such as Frederick Law Olmsted and Patrick Geddes that landscape planning was linked not only to aesthetic values, but also to wider ecological, social and environmental values. As Fabos states, "The development of environmental values¡Kis thus equally important to the development of landscape planning principles" (Fabos, 1979, p.46).

       2.3.24    During the 1960s and 1970s, theoreticians and practitioners in the United States began to establish connections between other aspects of the natural sciences and the social sciences to identify landscape values which did not necessarily have a visual dimension, but which were based on processes. As McHarg states (McHarg, 1969, p.110) in a book chapter named 'Processes as Values',:

       2.3.25    "The basic proposition is that any place is the sum of historical physical and biological processes, that these are dynamic and that these constitute social value...".

       2.3.26    Indeed, in the United States, it was recognised by practitioners such as McHarg and Fabos that 'scenic' values of landscape are only one set of criteria in the landscape planning process (McHarg (1969) passim). In his landscape planning study for Statten Island (McHarg, 1969, p.110), most of McHarg's criteria for evaluation can be classed as non-visual. These include:

        2.3.27   From this list, many values associated with landscape assessment and planning are not intrinsically visual and an emphasis on a much wider set of values than simply visual or aesthetic values is a characteristic of American approaches to landscape assessment and planning (as noted in the 'Inception Report' to this Study).

                   Subjectivity, Objectivity and Consensual Landscape Values

        2.3.28   Whilst in certain fields of endeavour, it is argued, sometimes controversially, that values can be objective (the United Nations concept of 'human rights' and Catholic Church's 'cannon law' are examples of this) this report does not assume the existence of such values with regard to landscape. The derivation of intrinsic landscape value has no readily manifested objective basis. Therefore, with regard to appraisal of landscape value, it is assumed that this is largely a subjective process. However, it is equally assumed that that valid subjective judgements must be made on a rational and coherent basis and address intrinsic rather than extrinsic landscape merit.

        2.3.29   More importantly, despite the inherently subjective aspect of landscape value, it is possible to identify considerable consensus with regard to subjective value. Consensus can be manifested in a number of different ways, as will be shown below. Whilst any given individual is entitled to his/her personal view, generally it is sensible and rational if the consensus on any specific matter prevails. It is therefore reasonable to accord different weights to different sources of evidence of consensus, assuming always that arguments are put forward on a rational and coherent basis:

       2.3.30    As the UK Countryside Commission has stated, "Its is therefore a question of degree and it is neither possible, nor indeed desirable, to do away completely with subjectivity in landscape assessment. The important thing is that everyone involved in the process...understands which elements of it are wholly objective and unlikely to be disputed and which ones are subjective and likely to be viewed differently by different stakeholders" (Countryside Agency, 1999, p.9)

       2.3.31    In the case of application of values, what is most important is that criteria should be open and transparent and arguments put forward rationally.

                    Evidence of Consensual Landscape Value

       2.3.32    The following set of consensual values can be identified and employed in the landscape evaluation process:

                    International Consensual Values

       2.3.33    There is a considerable literature and research evidence to suggest that there is an internationally held consensus, as to a group of core values associated with landscape. These values are now so widely accepted both by international organisations and in technical and professional literature, that they can be assumed to take on prima facie force. Such values are not objective, but certainly have a consensual force. These core values are set out below:

       2.3.34    Value as Natural Resource. Landscape is an expression of wider concerns over ecological sustainability and biodiversity, which are now accepted globally. Article 1 of the 'The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity', Rio de Janeiro 1992 recognises the value of "the conservation of biological diversity" and "the sustainable use of its components". In the UK, as early as 1971, Hackett recognised a "growing acceptance of the need for ecological basis in planning large areas of landscape" (Hackett, 1971, p.18). Writers in the USA such as McHarg and Fabos have also long recognised the importance of landscape as a resource. As Laurie states, "it is necessary to find a way to evaluate the variables of the natural system...This is the essence of what is defined here as landscape planning." (Laurie, 1975, p.91).

        2.3.35    However, it is not correct simply to say that a landscape has value because it contains a single feature or species of value. As the UK Minister for the Environment stated in his decision on the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, "matters relating to the flora and fauna of an area and its geological and physiographical features are capable of being relevant matters which the Commission may take into account when considering" the value of a landscape (Countryside Commission, 1987, para 3.8).

       2.3.36    For the purposes of this Study, it is assumed that natural resource features should have a direct or indirect visual manifestation in the landscape for them to be considered as having landscape value.

       2.3.37    Value as Locale - As numerous psychological studies have shown, 'sense of place', 'genius loci' or local distinctiveness contribute significantly to human well-being. Conversely, places which are all identical appear oppressive, boring and ultimately, depressing (Kepes, G., passim and Lynch,K. 1959).

       2.3.38    In the UK, this sense of place or local distinctiveness has assumed a focal position in landscape assessment and evaluation, under the concept of "landscape character". As the UK Countryside Commission has stated, "it is important that...diversity of character should be recognised and built upon" (Countryside Commission, 1993, p.5). 

       2.3.39    The United Nations has recognised that "because of their beauty and character, the safeguarding of landscapes...is necessary to the life of men for whom they represent a powerful physical, moral and spiritual regenerating influence..." "(UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites, Paris, 1962, Preamble).

       2.3.40    Value as Heritage - Landscape is the palimpsest on which the history of our cultures is written. It is therefore an historic artefact, which connects us to our ancestors via systems of culture, spirituality and myth. Simon Schama has stated that that "it was always the inherited tradition... that made landscape out of mere geology and vegetation...and it is culture, convention and cognition...that invests a retinal impression with the quality we experience as beauty...If our entire landscape tradition is the product of a shared culture, it is by the same token a tradition built from a rich deposit of myths, memories and obsessions..." (Schama, 1995, p11-14).

       2.3.41    The United Nation has stated that "historic areas are part of the daily environment of human beings everywhere, that they represent the living presence of the past...that they provide the variety in life's background needed to match the diversity of society and that by so doing they gain in value and acquire an additional human dimension" (UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris, 1972, Preamble).

       2.3.42    As the UK Countryside Commission has stated, landscape features "give us a link with our past and a better understanding of our place in the world and in time. It is impossible to separate out such cultural values from a person's response to landscape" (Countryside Commission, 1987, para 3.5).

       2.3.43    Value as a Scenic Resource. - Landscapes respond to fundamental human needs for beauty, which is universally recognised. Just why scenic beauty and landscape should exert such a hold on the human mind has been the subject of extensive research and discourse in almost every culture. The value of scenic landscape is one that is unequivocally recognised by the United Nations:

       2.3.44    "on account of their beauty and character, the safeguarding of landscapes and sites...is necessary to the life of men for whom they represent a powerful physical, moral and spiritual regenerating influence, whilst at the same time contributing to the artistic and cultural life of peoples as innumerable and universally known examples bear witness..." (UNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes and Sites, Paris, 1962, Preamble.)

       2.3.45    A considerable literature has developed around the subject of how 'scenic beauty', that is, the visual component of landscape value, can be defined and predicted. The objective of such normative predictors is to identify those elements of landscape which, in scientifically conducted research, consistently prove to be associated with value in the minds of subjects. The assumption of these methods is that there is a consistent value relationship between certain landscapes or features and the human brain.

       2.3.46    Wherrett (1996) has carried out a comprehensive review of such techniques and she terms such models 'Quantitative Holistic Methods'. Such models attempt to identify rigorous scientific links between landscape features and human aesthetic response. What is of note is that in her review of numerous different studies and research papers (almost all from North America or Europe), covering a variety of different techniques, there was a broad agreement as to a statistically consistent set of landscape features which were deemed to be valuable. She states that:

       2.3.47    "It is recognised that there are a few permanent landscape characteristics which are prime contributors to scenic quality - terrain, water, ground cover and human artefacts" (Wherrett, 1996)

       2.3.48    Zube, Pitt and Anderson carried out research in the 1970s which concluded that:

       2.3.49    "Scenic value is a function of relative land-form and diversity of land use. As relative elevation decreases in magnitude, diversity of land-use pattern increases in importance for the maintenance of high scenic value...Water...almost always enhances scenic quality (an exception being pollution levels at which floating objects, discoloration, and/or odors become offensive)" (Zube (ed) 1975, p.152).

       2.3.50    Their research also suggested, though did not prove a linkage between popular preference for wilderness landscapes, over more developed landscape, including that of towns and cities.

       2.3.51    Fabos suggests that:

       2.3.52    "Most of the behavioural studies and assessment techniques developed...focus on two significant variables: landscape complexity and visual-cultural compatibility...The value of complexity has been supported by numerous researchers, who have found that more complex landscapes are both more pleasing and more interesting to people...Diversity is also an important component of complexity and is often measured in terms of the number of different land uses in a given area...Visual compatibility is probably less widely measured than landscape complexity. Only recently have studies undertaken to discover to what degree a neighbouring land use or activity may enhance or detract from the perceived quality of a given area." (Fabos, 1979, pp100-101).

       2.3.53    Research into public preference predictors has suggested that there may be a coherent set of landscape features around which a consensus of value may be built. However, these findings are best approached with a certain amount of caution. In particular, it may be argued that such public preference predictors are an over-simplification of what is an extremely complex field, failing to take account of the particular circumstances relevant to any given landscape and also to the experiential qualities of that landscape.

       2.3.54    In addition, most or all of this research was carried out in North America or Europe and it is acknowledged that there may be variation in these normative values between people of different race and nationality (Zube and Pitt, 1981). At the same time however, other research has concluded that that the similarities across cultures in terms of perception and cognition are much more impressive than the differences and that there is a consistent area of consensus in the filed of normative landscape values (Ulrich, 1977).

       2.3.55    From the above, it can be concluded that there appears to be at least a prima facie consensus in the field of landscape value and that there appears to be a set of almost universally accepted core values which reveal what it is about landscape that is valuable, namely:

       2.3.56    In addition, there is considerable, though not complete, consensus arising from research studies as to which elements of landscape are valued. These are:

       2.3.57    Despite this, it would be misleading to deny the subjective component of landscape value and the necessity for validation or refinement of these values in any particular case.

                    Local Evidence of Consensual Landscape Value

       2.3.58    As noted above, there is a certain force to the set of international consensual values attached to landscape, expressed through international organisations such as UNESCO or through the common findings of research literature. Whilst this constitutes a core set of values, it must be acknowledged that there also exists considerable diversity at the margins of these values for further debate at national, regional, local and at individual levels. Further manifestations of consensual value at the local level can be provided by the following sources:

                    (a)     Statutory or Quasi-statutory Documents Recognising Landscape Value

       2.3.59    Public or Government documents (particularly planning documents) often express value judgements in relation to certain landscapes. These documents may be taken as expressing a consensual or publicly held value with regard to certain landscapes or landscape features . In Hong Kong, the Territory Development Strategy Reviews, Metroplan and OZPs all identify areas or features of special or high landscape value (different terms are used in different documents). In addition, recognised features such as SSSIs, or registered ancient monuments express a consensual value with regard to certain landscape features.

       2.3.60    It should be stressed that designation or evaluation in such documents should not have an irrevocable force or that these evaluations should not be reviewed, but it does give them a prima facie weight which can be rebutted only by superseding events or new considerations.

                   (b)    The Works of Published Authors and Commentators

       2.3.61    In any given locale, there is likely to be a body of literature analysing and commentating on the landscape. The content of such works, particularly where the authors are learned or eminent in their field may provide evidence of further intrinsic value particular to the locale under consideration.

                   (c)    The Opinion of Consultees and Stakeholders

       2.3.62    The opinion of local consultees and stakeholders is an important component of landscape value.

                   The Values of Expert Professionals

       2.3.63    As appraisals of landscape character and landscape condition and sensitivity have a more objective basis, input from consultees will take on a different weight than in appraisals of landscape value (especially scenic characteristics) where a greater degree of subjectivity is involved.

                   The Values of Expert Professionals    

       2.3.64    The values of professionals trained in landscape aesthetics is useful, as they are trained to think in structured and rationalised ways. PExpert professionals Landscape Architects also have a training in the field of 'aesthetics' allowing them to reach judgements based on accepted best practice in the field.

       2.3.65    Research has also shown a high correlation between professional judgement as to landscape value and the preference of the public (Fabos (ed) (1975, pp151-167). However, whilst expert judgement may be useful in the more objective areas of assessing landscape values (such as landscape character or landscape condition) it would be unwise to suggest that opportunities for value input by public consultees should not be permitted.

                   The Appraisal of Landscape Character vs. Appraisal of Landscape Features

       2.3.66    The manner in which landscape has been appraised and evaluated throughout recent history has evolved through numerous phases. During certain periods, landscape has been viewed holistically (i.e. wherein its value exceeded the value of the sum of its parts). This is certainly true of 18th Century concepts of the 'picturesque' or the 'sublime' in landscape painting which emphasised the overall aesthetic effect of a series of landscape components.

       2.3.67    In the United States during the 20th Century, an approach to appraisal and evaluation was developed which tended to dis-aggregate landscape into separate component parts. McHarg, Fabos and others developed techniques whereby an inventory of different landscape elements was prepared, and were mapped separately, with little or no attempt to identify an aggregate effect, except under a category of 'scenic resources', which became merely one category amongst many. A key feature of this approach is that as McHarg states, "While in every case there should be little doubt as to the ranking within a category, there is no possibility of ranking the categories themselves. For example, it is quite impossible to compare a unit of wildlife value with a unit of land value or to compare a unit of recreational value with one of hurricane danger..." (McHarg, 1969, p.34).

       2.3.68    In the 1980s and 1990s in the UK, there was a reaction against dis-aggregation of landscape into component features and the attempts that were often made to ascribe quantitative values to these features. The UK Countryside Commission in 1987 criticised such approaches on the basis that "The 'statistical methods' of landscape evaluation or landscape classification have often assessed different landscapes, by measuring the incidence of particular elements in any one scene or in any unit area of survey" (Countryside Commission, 1987, para 2.5). It should be noted however that a flaw in this criticism is that dis-aggregation does not have to go hand-in-hand with allocation of quantifiable evaluation.

       2.3.69    This led to a methodological emphasis on aggregation of landscape, in order to understand its full value. This approach was termed the 'landscape character' approach. The Landscape Character approach attempts to identify "the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements which occur consistently in a particular type of landscape" (Countryside Agency, 1999, p6). The key feature of this approach is that it divides landscape up into consistent areas of homogenous character on the basis of largely objectively identified patterns of landscape elements. The application of values to these areas is therefore made, maintaining a distinct separation between classification and evaluation.

       2.3.70    There are however two key disadvantages of this approach. The first is that landscape character is essentially a continuum and does not stop abruptly. Therefore the definition of boundaries of landscape character areas on a map is often fraught with controversy (although coherent guidelines have been developed to deal with such issues). Secondly, the very attempt at value-free classification of the landscape means that the application of values to 'character', a rather nebulous term, tends also to be controversial and open to interpretation.

       2.3.71    In response to these problems and to others associated with the character led approach, other approaches have been developed in the UK, which concentrate less on nebulous concepts of character and more on specific landscape features. In particular, the recent Countryside Character initiative has applied the concept of Environmental Capital to landscape evaluation. Environmental Capital is a new, integrated decision-making tool that covers all aspects of the environment. It has been developed and expanded to cover social and economic as well as environmental considerations. It offers a systematic way of recording which landscape areas and features (attributes) matter to people and why, by analysing the services (benefits) that they provide. For example, a landscape area or feature may be a local landmark, a valued habitat or a recreational resource. The approach helps place values on the commonplace as well as the unusual and rare; and allows stakeholder values to be seen alongside scientific and professional values. Analysis of other aspects of environmental capital, namely importance, enoughness and trends relative to target was also undertaken. The findings were tested through discussions with local staff of the conservation agencies and local authorities. The result of these discussions was that the Environmental Capital approach was very-time consuming a somewhat clumsy to use and a the recognition that further work was required to refine the methodology.

       2.3.72    The dis-aggregation of landscape into specialist areas or 'Aspects' is a model used by the Welsh LANDMAP method of landscape assessment. This method evaluates individual areas of the landscape separately (Earth Science, Biodoiversity, Visual and Sensory, History and Archaeology and Cultural) and views the process of characterisation as an add-on which is not essential to the evaluation process.

       2.3.73    The value of dis-aggregation is that it is extremely transparent as to why particular aspects of landscape are important and does not attempt to mix values from one set of landscape elements with values from another. It is also extremely explicit as to which features are of little or no landscape value. Dis-aggregation also has the virtue that it is therefore very robust and allows argument as to value be focussed and useful.

       2.3.74    Dis-aggregation may however over-emphasise the importance of landscape features over character. Character is a vital synthesising tool, which expresses values of sense of place and local distinctiveness in a way in which dis-aggregation cannot. The concept of character and area evaluation is of prime importance to the appraisal, which no landscape appraisal study can afford to ignore.

       2.3.75    However, it does not necessarily follow that the concept of 'character' expresses the true and complete set of values present in any landscape. Character is not a mystical or esoteric concept, but is the aggregate effect of certain physical landscape features on the ground and the relationship between them. The key to an understanding of character and value, is therefore to identify in any given landscape type those key features which in combination, provide the essence of its (positive) landscape character.

       2.3.76    From the above discussion, it can be seen that landscape appraisal at an aggregate (character) level and at a dis-aggregated (resources level) are both necessary in order to fully reflect landscape character and values.

                   Quantification in Landscape Appraisal

       2.3.77    Quantification as a basis of landscape appraisal was the subject of extensive research and academic interest during the 1960s and 1970s, statistical techniques are still in use in certain parts of the world.

      2.3.78     The assignment of cardinal values (i.e. absolute values defined on a linear scale) in the evaluation of landscape features or types, has largely fallen out of use. However such techniques can still be seen in use from time to time as a 'rough-and-ready' technique. Such techniques are not easily justified and are certainly open to the following criticisms:

       2.3.79    One area where quantification still plays a significant role in current assessment methodologies is in the assessment of public preference for scenic beauty. In the United States and New Zealand, Statistical techniques such as Q-sort and regression analysis are still in use for analysing public opinion samples in order to predict preference in terms of 'scenic beauty'. Such techniques focus not on providing a cardinal evaluation, but rather on assessing their ordinal landscape value (e.g. Landscape Type A is preferred to Landscape Type B, which is preferred to Type C, etc.). However, these techniques have themselves also been the subject of considerable debate and criticism. In particular, Carlson (1977) argues that preference scores do not indicate 'value' in the sense that they do not explain why one landscape is preferred over another and are of little use in understanding appropriate management regimes or development control mechanisms.

       2.3.80    The issue of quantification has led the Countryside Commission to conclude that:

       2.3.81    "The 'statistical' methods of landscape evaluation or landscape classification have often assessed different landscapes by measuring the incidence of particular elements in any one scene or in any unit area of survey, such as kilometre square...The University of Manchester conducted a study for the Commission in the early 1970s and concluded that landscape evaluation required a broad-based approach rather than a narrowly confined assessment dependent on over-strictly defined criteria..." (Countryside Commission, 1987, paras 2.5-2.6). The Commission from this point on has advocated an approach, which eschews quantification almost totally in favour of a character-led approach to appraisal.

       2.3.82    In conclusion, it can be said that quantification does not readily lend itself to landscape value. Perhaps the most significant criticism of the quantification approach is its failure to explain value, which ultimately relies on human judgement, consensual or otherwise.

       2.3.83    In the appraisal of other aspects of landscape (e.g. condition), quantification may be more useful. In particular, the use of GIS lends itself well to the use of quantification in some form. However, there is a danger in over-reliance on quantification, especially where quantification is used as a common denominator to compare features or areas of different types.

       2.3.84    Perhaps the most appropriate approach is to harness the power of quantification, which is of particular use in terms of indicators in such a way that fundamental value judgements are recognised and rendered transparent and so that only features of similar type are compared.

 

                   (1)    Government has suggest that the Strudy should focus on aspects of landscape which have a visual manifestation. This proposal and the content of this section of the report will be reviewed during the remainder of the Study.

Go to previousGo to main pageGo to next