Utilizing a Photo-Analysis Software for Content Identifying Method (CIM)

Open access


Content Identifying Methodology or (CIM) was developed to measure public preferences in order to reveal the common characteristics of landscapes and aspects of underlying perceptions including the individual's reactions to content and spatial configuration, therefore, it can assist with the identification of factors that influenced preference. Regarding the analysis of landscape photographs through CIM, there are several studies utilizing image analysis software, such as Adobe Photoshop, in order to identify the physical contents in the scenes. This study attempts to evaluate public’s ‘preferences for aesthetic qualities of pedestrian bridges in urban areas through a photo-questionnaire survey, in which respondents evaluated images of pedestrian bridges in urban areas. Two groups of images were evaluated as the most and least preferred scenes that concern the highest and lowest mean scores respectively. These two groups were analyzed by CIM and also evaluated based on the respondent’s description of each group to reveal the pattern of preferences and the factors that may affect them. Digimizer Software was employed to triangulate the two approaches and to determine the role of these factors on people’s preferences. This study attempts to introduce the useful software for image analysis which can measure the physical contents and also their spatial organization in the scenes. According to the findings, it is revealed that Digimizer could be a useful tool in CIM approaches through preference studies that utilizes photographs in place of the actual landscape in order to determine the most important factors in public preferences for pedestrian bridges in urban areas.

Anderson, L. M., & Schroeder, H. W. (1983). Application of wildland scenic assessment methods to the urban landscape. Landscape Planning, 10, 219-237.

Arriaza, M, Canas-Ortega, J. F., Canas-Madueno, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 115-125.

Bernaldez, F.G., Ruiz, J.P., Benayas, J., and Abello, R.P. (1998). Real landscapes versus photographed landscapes: preference dimensions. Landscape Resources, 13, 10-11.

Beza, B. (2010). The aesthetic value of a mountain landscape: A study of the Mt. Everest Trek. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 306-317.

Bishop, I. D. (1997). Testing perceived landscape colour difference using the Internet. Landscape and Urban Planning, 37, 187-196.

Brown, T. C., & Daniel, T. C. (1986). Predicting Scenic Beauty of Timber Stands. Forest Science, 32, 417-487.

Buhyoff, G. J., Gauthier, L. J., and Wellman, J. D. (1984). Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurements. Forest Science, 30(1), 71-82.

Cañas, I., Ayuga, E., and Ayuga, F. (2009). A contribution to the assessment of scenic quality of landscapes based on preferences expressed by the public. Land Use Policy, 26, 1173-1181.

Daniel, T. C. (1990). Measuring the quality of the human environment: a psychophysical approach. American Psychologist, 45, 633-637.

Daniel, T. C., (2001). Whither scenic beauty? visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape Urban Planning, 25, 267-281.

Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape aesthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service, 167, 66-69.

Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In Altman, I., & Wohwill, J. F. (Eds.), Behaviour and the Natural Environment (pp. 39-83.). New York: Plenum Press.

Español, I. (1995). Impacto Ambiental (Environmental Impact). Canales y Puertos, Madrid: E.T.S.I. Caminos.

García, M. L., Hernańdez, B. J., and Ayuga, F. (2003). Analysis of the exterior colour of agroindustrial buildings: a computer aided approach to landscape integration. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 93-104.

Gottemoeller, F. (2004). Bridgescape: The Art of Designing Bridge. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Groat, L. (1984). Public opinions of contextual fit. Architecture, 11, 72-75.

Hagerhall, C. M., Purcell, T. and Taylor, R. (2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference, J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 247-255.

Hammitt, W. E., Patterson, M. E., and Noe, F. P. (1994). Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 29, 171-183.

Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27-43.

Hull, R. B., & Revell, G. R. (1988). Cross-cultural comparison of landscape scenic beauty evaluations: a case study in Bali. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 177-191.

Hull, R.B. & Stewart, W.P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101-114.

Hull, R. B. & Harvey, A. (1989). Explaining the emotion people experience in suburban parks. Environment and behavior, 21(3), 323-345. Kaltenborn, B. P. & Bjerke, T. (2002). Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, 1-11.

Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an nncertain World. New York: Praeger.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban Material. Perception Psychophysics, 12(4), 354-356.

Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, R. (1977). Preference and everyday nature: method and application. In: Stokols, D. (Ed.), Perspectives on Environmental Behavior -Theory, Research and Applications (pp. 235-250). New York: Plenum Press.

Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohwill (Eds.), Behavior and Natural Environment (pp. 127-162). New York: Plenum Press.

Kaplan, R., & Herbert, E. J. (1987). Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281-293.

Kenwick, R.A., Shammin, Md. R. and Sullivan, W.C. (2009). Preferences for riparian buffers. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, 88-96.

Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

Law, C. S., & Zube, E. H. (1983). Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception. Landscape Resources, 8, 22-23.

Lekagul, A. (2002). A preference study of the traditional Thai Market Place: A management and preservation tool for vernacular environments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.

Leonhardt, F. (1984). Bridges: Aesthetics and Design. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.

Leonhardt, F. (2001). Bridge Engineering Handbook. In Wai-Fah Chen, & Lian Duan (Eds), Bridge Aesthetics Basics (chapter 2). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Listavich, S. T. (1995). The development of aesthetic guidelines for short and medium span Texas bridge systems. Unpublished Master’s thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.

Magill, A. W., & Litton, R. B. J. (1986). A color measuring system for landscape assessment. Landscape Journal, 5(1), 45-54.

Menn, C. (1986). Prestressed Concrete Bridges. Wien: Springer-Verlag.

Miller, P. A. (1984). Visual Preference and Implications for Coastal Management: A Perceptual Study of the British Colombia Shoreline. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Minnesota Department of Transportation. Office of Technical Support, Site Development Unit (1995). Architectural and Visual Quality Design Recommendations, for the T.H. 610 Transportation Corridors.

Nasar, J. L. (1997). The Evaluative Image of the City. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pitt, D., G., & Zube, E. H. (1987). Management of Natural Environments. In Stokols, D., Altman, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp.1009-1042). New York: Wiley.

Reese, R. C. (1976). Aesthetic is a do it yourself project. Methods of Structural Analysis, (ASCE), 1, 33-38. Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, A. and Hejazi, E. (2000). Research methods in behavioral science. Tehran. Iran: Agah Press.

Sayadi, S., González-Roa, M. C., and Calatrava-Requena, J. (2009). Public preferences for landscape features: the case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 334-344.

Schroeder, H. W. (1986). Estimating park trees densities to maximize landscape aesthetics. Journal of Environmental Management, 23(4), 325-333.

Shafer, E. L. (1969). Perception of natural environment. Environment and Behavior, 1, 71-82.

Shafer, E. L., & Brush, R. O. (1977). How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Planning, 4, 237-256.

Sheets, V. L., & Manzer, C. D. (1991). Affect, cognition, and urban vegetation some effects of adding trees along city streets. Environment and Behavior, 23(3), 285-304.

Shuttleworth, S., (1980). The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11, 61-76.

Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155-175.

Stamps, A. E. & Miller, S. D. (1993). Advocacy membership, design guidelines, and predicting preferences for residential infill designs. Environment and Behavior, 25(3), 367-409.

Stewart, T. R., Middleton, P., Downton, M., Ely, D. (1984). Judgments of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgment of the visual environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 283-302.

Svobodova, K., Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K. and Salek, M. (2012). Visual preferences for physical attributes of mining and post-mining landscapes with respect to the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. Ecological Engineering, 43, 34-44.

Wherrett, J. R. (2000). Creating landscape preference models using the internet as a medium for surveys. Landscape Resources, 25, 79-96.

Woods, J. D. (1995). Environmental factors that influence preference and price perceptions of commercial landscapes and storefronts. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.

Yu, K. (1995). Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 107-126.

Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L. & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1-33.

Zuk, W. (1973). Public response to bridge colors. Department of Highways and the University of Virginia, Virginia Highway Research Council: Charlottesville, VA.

Journal of Landscape Ecology

The Journal of Czech National Chapter of the Association for Landscape Ecology (CZ-IALE)

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.68

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.245
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.560


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 135 131 13
PDF Downloads 63 61 7