reader in visual quality what we see and why, an analysis

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CEN

Visual Quality

David B. Harper, Editor

,What we see and why:
An analysis

no.80-26

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

(IU : c rr _n COMMIERCE NOA A D1
l"~ � ;�CE^ CENTER Reader
22A ^ 0: I, ::H :il C,' N ( A ENU E
C HARSTON (, h 2 9 40 5-2413 in

Visual Quality

What we see and why:
An analysis

David B. Harper, Editor

NYSG-RR-80-26

. This research-was sponsored by New York Sea Grant Institute under a grant
from the Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
1} fq4 tion (NOAA), US Department of Commerce. The US Government is
D. authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes
notwithstanding any copyright notation appearing hereon.

CL-,, ; 0 Ps .ropezty of CsC Library
7, "c1

CONTENTS

Introduction
by D.B. Harper ..........5................; ............ 5

Focusing on Visual Quality of the Coastal Zone
by D.B. Harper ......................................... 7

Assessing the Visual Quality of the Coastal Zone
by T.J. Nieman ............................ .............. 13

Coastal Landforms and Scenic Analysis: A Review
by J.P. Felleman .........................1.......7....... 1

Viewing New York's Coast: Resources, Research Issues,
and "PREVIEW" a Computer Modelling Technique
by J.P. Felleman ..................... ...... ............... 29

Aesthetic and Recreational Factors in Barrier Island Planning
by J.P. Felleman .............. ...... ....................... 35

Bibliography: The Description, Classification,
and Assessment of Visual Landscape Quality
by T.J. Nieman and R.C. Viohl ....... .................. 41

Appendix: Update of Recent Research Activities ........ ..... ....... 55

INTRODUCTION

Coastal areas, whether urban or wilderness, hold a particular fascination for most of us.
The feel of wind and water, and the sound and smells we associate with the coast, play
significant roles in this appeal. It is what our eyes sense, however, and the associations they
conjure in our minds, that usually dominate our attraction to the land-water edge.
Coastal zone management, a recent priority in our national policy, is a response to
increasing competition for this complex strip of limited resources. Declining visual quality is
one of these limited resources. It also is an elusive, intangible resource which is difficult to
quantify or define precisely.
This collection of articles is intended for the general reader who is curious about what
landscape visual quality is and how it can be considered in coastal management decisions.
These articles are previously published products of a research project sponsored by the New
York Sea Grant Institute between 1974 and 1978, at the School of Landscape Architecture,
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse.
The first paper, by Harper, provides an overview of growing visual quality concerns for
our coastal zone and describes the focus and early results of this research effort. Two major
research directions were indicated by those initial investigations: (1) perceptions of and
attitudes toward coastal visual environments by their users and managers; and (2) actual
descriptive and measurement methods for analyzing shorescapes. The papers which follow
show some of the implications of these investigations. An appendix outlining more recent
accomplishments is also included.
Nieman's paper identifies difficulties inherent in the first direction (attitude and
preference measurement) and sets the stage for later surveys.
Felleman's papers likewise treat several aspects of the second direction above:
shorescape analysis methods. His first paper, on "Coastal Landforms," presents a basic
vocabulary and types of approaches which have been used to describe and classify landforms,
with special emphasis on those typical of coastal areas.
Felleman's second paper deals more directly with the coastal character of New York
State. A discussion of how landscapes are perceived is also included, followed by presentation
of a computer technique for simulating landscapes which is currently being tested in
shorescape visibility studies.
Felleman's third article focuses even more specifically on a particular coastal
environment: the barrier island. A case is presented for the significant role which barrier
islands can and do play in satisfying two closely related human needs: aesthetic and
recreational experiences.
This collection closes with a bibliography which serves as a starting point for further
exploration of the topic of visual landscape quality. Sources are grouped for convenience into
three categories: aesthetics theory, landscape classification, and landscape preference
assessment.
-David B. Harper

Reprinted from The Present and Future of Coasts, Proceedings of First Annual Conference, The Coastal
Society, Arlington, VA, November 1975. Published by The Coastal Society, PO Box 34405, Bethesda, MD
20034.

FOCUSING ON VISUAL QUALITY OF THE COASTAL ZONE (1)
David B. Harper
State University of New York
College of Environmental Science and Forestry
School of Landscape Architecture
Syracuse, New York 13210

Abstract. Consideration of aesthetic values on an equal basis with ecologic, economic,
and other values is mandated for planning decisions in the coastal zone. A Sea Grant
research program in New York seeks to provide user-oriented methods for visual quality
protection and control along the state's coastline.

Growing Concern for Visual Quality
Most of us would agree on the dramatic scenic beauty of jagged cliffs plunging abruptly
down to beaches of golden sand washed by clear blue-green surf. And most of us would agree
on the revolting ugliness of oil and sewage sloshing among the wrecks of rotting piers and
rusting half-sunken barges at the backside of one of our coastal cities. Yet most of our
shorescapes are neither as dramatic nor as revolting. Agreement on their visual quality is far
less universal, but awareness of the importance of visual quality is growing.
Recent public concern for visual quality can be seen as a subset of the broader
environmental quality movement. Consciously or not, we often attribute visual quality to
environmentally harmonious features of our surroundings and attribute ugliness to products
of environmental degradation or pollution. Our evaluation of visual quality is strongly
influenced by the extent to which the high-rise, the tree, the sign, the beach is perceived as an
integral, functioning part of its surroundings. As with most public outcries, the visual quality
issue has been most stimulated by the negative aspects-the unsightly and ugly. They tell us
something has gone awry. We have bemoaned the loss of visual quality and eventually turned
our attention toward positive action-how to improve unsightly scenes and how to protect
attractive areas from visual blight.
Public concern for visual quality, although not new, was focused nationally in Lady Bird
and President Johnson's Beautification Program. Subsequent legislation has required equal
consideration of aesthetic values along with ecological, economic, and other social values in
land use decisions. One of six environmental objectives of the federal government, as stated in
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), is to "assure for all Americans safe,
healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings" (2).
In regard specifically to the coastal zone, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
finds that "important ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values in the coastal zone
which are essential to the well being of all citizens are being irretrievably damaged or lost;
special natural and scenic characteristics are being damaged by ill-planned development . . .
This act encourages states to give "full consideration" to these values in coastal management
programs (3). Under this act, federal grants to states for coastal management program
administration are made contingent, in part, on whether "the management program makes
provision for procedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of

Harper
preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic
values" (4).
State, regional, and local agencies concerned with environmental quality frequently also
have mandates to consider aesthetic values (5). The aesthetic quality issue is currently being
carried a step farther-court cases are testing whether aesthetic values alone are sufficient to
halt or modify certain land use actions. The decisions are by no means in total agreement with
one another, but the role of aesthetics (and particularly of visual quality) is clearly growing in
significance (6).
To require consideration of aesthetic values is one thing; to incorporate them rationally
and objectively into plans and programs is quite another. Many methods for evaluating the
aesthetic qualities of landscapes have been devised, by psychologists, landscape architects,
foresters, geologists, geographers, and others. Aesthetic or visual quality may be viewed as the
interpretation by an individual, as influenced by his experience, motivation, attitudes, and
other psychological factors, of a particular combination of external physical stimuli,
predominantly visual. Consequently, these evaluation methods may be broadly classified
according to whether they focus on identifying and classifying personal attitudes and
preferences (individual interpretation) or physical landscape features (the visual stimuli) (7).
Methods vary widely in scale (from regional to site-specific), in subjectivity or objectivity of
evaluation, and in types of landscapes evaluated. 'Several recent reviews of landscape
evaluation methods provide more detailed analysis (8).
Despite a certain availability of aesthetic evaluation methods, they rarely seem to have
found their way into the public planning process. One analysis found that "most planners
interviewed... either had never heard of the methods available or found them useless for
their work (i.e.... too subjective, too time-consuming in data collection, not flexible enough
for diverse planning situations, and too expensive)" (9). It might be added that they can also
be too complex for the uninitiated to employ.
Specific applications of visual assessment methods to coastal landscapes and in coastal
planning are even fewer. A recent volume succinctly compiles the aesthetic aspects of the
water's edge and proposes an approach to systematic evaluation (10). Even more recent is a
draft manual just produced for the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as an aid to coastal zone management programs in the
states (11). One of the most graphic and comprehensible applications of visual analysis and
guidelines for coastal planning is People and The Sound: Shoreline Appearance and Design, A
Planning Handbook produced for the Long Island Sound Study of the New England River
Basins Commission (12).

A Visual Quality Research Program for New York
In light of the paucity of inclusion of visual considerations in the land use planning
process, and in coastal zone planning in particular, a proposal to define and research visual
quality issues pertaining to New York State's marine and Great Lakes coastal zone was
prepared in 1974 by the School of Landscape Architecture, State University of New York
College of Environmental Science and Forestry, in Syracuse. The proposal was endorsed by
the New York Sea Grant Program (now New York Sea Grant Institute) and funded by the
NOAA Office of Sea Grant for a two-year period (1974-76) (13).
The project, entitled "Visual Quality of New York State's Coastal Zone", has the
ultimate objective of making visual quality an understandable concept and developing
methods by which coastal planners and managers, residents, and other users can play a
tangible role in promoting and protecting the coast's visual quality. The question of visual
quality has been so open to a multitude of widely divergent interpretations that the
investigation began with the preparation of four working papers of background information.
They are currently being distributed to selected reviewers for their comments. These papers
are:

Focusing on Visual Quality of the Coastal Zone

1. EVALUATING VISUAL QUALITY OF THE COASTLINE:
SOME SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Reviews the literature to explore the complexity of defining aesthetic or visual quality.
Both psychological and physical influences on individual evaluations of visual quality are
reviewed and discussed. The unique aesthetic attractions of water are considered and some of
the visual aspects of coastal zone boundary definition are presented. This paper provides a
background for subsequent research on visual assessment methods, user perceptions, and
landform analysis (14).

2. VISUAL QUALITYINLAND USE CONTROL
Explores the growth of public concern for visual quality and the history of the
translation of this concern into land use regulation laws in the United States. Emphasis is
placed on actions at the State and Federal levels (e.g., NEPA). A closer look is then taken at
the limited attention which has been given to visual quality regulation, specifically in the
coastal zone and in New York State (15). Anticipated investigations to follow up on this
paper will include detailed definition of current and innovative legal devices for controlling
visual quality.

3. LANDSCAPE EVALUATION:
A REVIEW OF CURRENT TECHNIQUES AND METHODOLOGIES
Classifies and compares some thirty recent approaches to evaluating the visual quality of
landscapes. These methods fall broadly into measures of preference or perception of landscape
viewers, or into descriptive classifications of physical landscape features. Discussion includes
the types of landscape evaluated, the features of the landscapes analyzed, the criteria by
which evaluations were made, who made them, and the techniques used for data collection
(16).
In addition, a bibliography of some 300 entries on landscape perception and assessment
has been compiled. It includes sections on theoretical and research approaches to aesthetics,
on landscape preference assessment, and on landscape classification. With this paper and
bibliography as a start, visual assessment methods are being screened for their applicability to
the unique linear coastline conditions. Testing of one scenic beauty preference method has
been initiated using randomly selected color slides of a large partly urbanized marsh complex
on Long Island. Other methods will be tested and evaluated in the second year.

4. COASTAL LANDFORMS AND SCENICANALYSIS:
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE,
WITH A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF NEW YORK'S SHORELINE
Surveys the evolution of methods of natural landform classification. Consideration is
given to the varying requirements at different scales. Classifications relating specifically to
shoreform morphology are discussed in greater detail. Nineteen coastal landform regions for
New York's marine and Great Lakes shores are designated and described, on the basis of
physiographic, geologic, and soil characteristics (17). Additionally, a representative two-by-
four mile sample site has been selected in each region and cross sections and landform analysis
prepared from topographic maps at 1:24,000 scale. Urban forms and land use patterns will be
treated similarly. Detailed field measurements of landforms at selected sites on the coast will
be undertaken.
To increase their familiarity with the State's shoreline, the researchers have undertaken
a field reconnaissance of the entire shore, by air and by land. The dominant natural and
man-made patterns and features, visual and physical accessibility to the water, and uses of the
shoreline have been noted and photographed on color slides. Methods of determining visibility,
both from and to the water, will also be investigated with the aim of defining the "visual
zone" of the coast, an important part of coastal zone definition for management purposes.

Harper

To enhance the usefulness of the slide collection, a cross-referencing system has been
devised which identifies each slide by location, landform features, land use, and other aspects
shown. This collection will be augmented with similarly referenced slides of coastal features
and development in other parts of the world.
An outline has been prepared for an illustrated publication which will describe the
distinctive visual characteristics of New York's Long Island and Great Lakes shoreline, with
respect to the nineteen distinctive regions which have been defined. This publication will
include appropriate photography, landform and land use analyses, and other field observa-
tions. Its purpose will be not as a tour guide to specific scenic sites, but as a document to
increase public awareness of the State's varied visual coastal environments.
Another thrust of the research program is in the direction of identifying the perceptions
and preferences of New York's coastal users and decision-makers toward the visual character
of the coast and how it is being treated. A pilot version of a survey questionnaire has been
tested and is being refined and revised for application to various coastal users. In the long
range, the purpose of this survey is to categorize the various attitudes toward the coast, to
identify dominant agreements and conflicts, and eventually to seek satisfactory responses
which most equitably meet the visual resource demands and potentials of New York's shores.
A major undertaking in the first year was the organization of a "Conference/Workshop
on Visual Quality and the Coastal Zone," held in Syracuse on 29-30 May, with 100
registrants. Three keynote speakers and eighteen other panelists gave presentations in three
conference sessions: visual attitudes and perceptions, visual quality assessment methods, and
visual quality planning on the coast. Panelists represented university researchers in landscape
architecture, geography, geology, recreation, and other disciplines, as well as private
consultants and public planning and regulatory agencies. Presentations covered a wide range of
approaches from literary to statistical, from theoretical to politically pragmatic. This
concentrated package successfully represented the current status of understanding visual
landscape quality, and particularly that of the coastal zone. The need for integration of
diverse efforts, particularly the adaptation of objective visual evaluation methods to
immediate coastal needs, was clearly demonstrated.
The workshop sessions involved registrants in small group discussions focusing on
specific case studies of typical visual quality conflict situations found along the coast. These
sessions provided an opportunity for expression of personal attitudes, exposure to others'
conflicting attitudes, and an incentive to seek compromise and understanding in reaching for
resolution to these conflicts, drawing on ideas generated by the conference papers. One of the
most useful outcomes of the Conference/Workshop was the opportunity it provided for a
diverse mixture of researchers, public agents, private practitioners, and coastal residents to get
acquainted, rub elbows, and exchange views (18).
The above activities are part of a program leading, over the next two or three years, to
the preparation of several handbooks designed for use by coastal planners and managers.
These handbooks will attempt to provide primarily three types of assistance: (1) methodology
allowing them, with a minimum of professional assistance, to identify and evaluate the visual
quality of coastal areas; (2) guidelines for aesthetic design of coastal developments; and (3)
implementation techniques and methods applicable to protection and enhancement of visual
resources of the coastline. Towards those ends, the research will focus on further coordination
with the findings and needs of other Sea Grant activities, such as recreational facilities,
engineering, power plant siting, and land/water use policies and controls.

References and Notes
1. This research was sponsored by New York Sea Grant Institute under a grant from the
Office of Sea Grant, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US
Department of Commerce. The US Government is authorized to produce and distribute
reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation appearing
hereon.

Focusing on Visual Quality of the Coastal Zone

2. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC Section 4321 et seq. (1970), Sec.
101.
3. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 USC Section 1451 et seq. (Supp. III, 1974),
Secs. 302, 303.
4. Ibicd, Sec. 30.
5. M.A. Ross, Visual Quality in Land Use Control, Sea Grant Project Working Paper No. 1,
(School of Landscape Architecture, SUNY College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, Syracuse, 1975).
6. For more detailed discussion of legal aspects of aesthetics in land use control see M.J.
Redding, Aesthetics in Environmental Planning (US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, 1973), pp. 31-38; J.W. Cerny, Esthetics and Jurisprudence: A
Bibliographic Primer, Exchange Bibliography #408 (Council of Planning Librarians,
Monticello, IIl., 1973; and M.A. Ross, op. cit. 1975).
7. R. Viohl, Jr. Landscape Evaluation: A Review of Current Techniques and Methodologies,
Sea Grant Project Working Paper No. 3 (School of Landscape Architecture, SUNY
College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, 1975).
8. C. Steinitz, et al., A Comparative Study of Resource Analysis Methods (Harvard
University Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, Mass., 1969); J. Fabos, Recreation
Symposium Proceedings (USDA Forest Service, Upper Darby, Pa., 1971), pp. 40-55; M.J.
Redding, op. cit. (1973), pp. 39-104; P. Jacobs, Town Planning Review 46(2) (1975), pp.
127-150; R. Viohl, Jr., op. cit. (1975).
9. M.J. Redding, op. cit. (1973), p. 155.
10. R.B. Litton, et al. Water and Landscape (Water Information Center, Port Washington,
New York, 1974).
11. Roy Mann Associates, Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone. Report prepared for
OCZM, NOAA. Cambridge, Mass., July 1975.
12. Roy Mann Associates, People and the Sound: Shoreline Appearance and Design, A
Planning Handbook (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1975).
13. Research Foundation of State University of New York, New York Sea Grant Program,
'74-'75 (RFSUNY, Albany, 1974), pp. 24-28.
14. S. Haskett, Evaluating Visual Quality of the Coastline: Some Significant Issues, Sea Grant
Project Working Paper No. 2 (School of Landscape Architecture, SUNY College of
Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, 1975).
15. M.A. Ross, op. cit. (1975).
16. R. Viohl, Jr., op. cit. (1975).
17. J.P. Felleman, Coastal Landforms and Scenic Analysis: A Review of the Literature, with a
Preliminary Examination of New York's Shoreline, Sea Grant Project Working Paper No.
4 (School of Landscape Architecture, SUNY College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, Syracuse, 1975).
18. D.B. Harper and J.D. Warbach, (eds.) Proceedings of Conference/Workshop on Visual
Quality and the Coastal Zone, Syracuse, New York, May 29-30, 1975 (in preparation).

ASSESSING THE VISUAL QUALITY OF THE COASTAL ZONE'
Thomas J. Nieman
State University of New York
College of Environmental Science and Forestry
School of Landscape Architecture
Syracuse, New York 13210

Abstract: The visual quality of the coastal zone is an important aspect of coastal
management. However, mechanisms for objectively analyzing visual resources in relation
to the perceptions and attitudes of coastal users are not well developed. The problem is
further complicated by the diverse nature of the groups utilizing various coastal
resources.

The consideration of visual quality as an important element in the planning process is
rapidly gaining support among planning agencies, consulting firms, and research institutions.
While there has been considerable documentation of efforts to appreciate, in a literary sense,
the visual aspects of the environment, visual quality has not been a major consideration in
policy planning. Nonetheless, under the term "aesthetics," federal and local guidelines refer to
visual quality as a required consideration on an equal basis with economic, social, and
environmental issues. The problem lies in that understanding visual quality, much less
objectively quantifying it, is at a much lower level of sophistication than the other issues. As a
result, policy planning is, at best, inconsistent and leads to conflicts that further frustrate
attempts to deal with visual quality as a tangible element in the planning process.
One of the upshots of the confusion is the adoption, through misunderstanding, of
cosmetic policies and implementation procedures, e.g., putting fences around junk yards and
cleaning trash out of streams, etc., that, while better than nothing, are expensive and relatively
short-termed. Concomitantly, public opinion has demanded more and Congress has responded
with the National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190, NEPA 1969), which requires
the Environmental Protection Agency to define a workable procedure for assessing visual
quality impact. Because of the paucity of available information and research, no way
presently exists for establishing objective guidelines for application on a uniform basis to
visual quality planning.
In recent years, basically since NEPA, serious attempts have been made to quantify and
qualify various aspects of visual quality so that they could be utilized feasibly with economic,
social, and environmental planning proposals. While these have primarily been directed toward
forestry, water resources, highway programs, conservation and preservation areas, and land use
planning, the few studies dealing with coastal: environments have been developed for the
California coastline. Unfortunately, the very dramatic natural landscapes and visual quality
variables which bless the California coast and the west coast, in general, are not found on most
of the other coasts of the country. Thus, researchers are faced with the problem of developing
workable objective analytical methodologies that can relate to relatively less exciting coastal
landscapes.

R f : V ,: :~~~~1

Nieman

Research interests need to be directed toward the development of methodologies that
relate to application, rather than basic research. They may be thought of as tools to aid
planners and decision makers in their attempts to identify and maintain the visual quality of
the coastal area of their immediate concern. These would hopefully allow their use on a level
comparable with the better known and more frequently utilized variables common to
planning decisions. In this vein, methodologies for quantifying visual quality may be
considered from two perspectives: visual assessment and user preferences. Visual assessment is
the approach that planners or decision makers would utilize to evaluate visual quality so that
the implications of environmental impacts or changes may be better understood. User
preference methodologies involve the evaluation of user responses to certain landscapes and
landscape settings. The goal of both approaches, however, is to allow a more objective
evaluation of visual quality so that planners and decision makers will be in a better position to
respond positively to alternative planning proposals that deal with the visual quality of an
area.
Some of the problems inherent in visual assessment and user preferences involve the bias
of the administrator or designer of the methods by which the experience of the public is
somewhat guided by the perception and attitudes of the individual test and the individuals
administering the test. Bias also comes into play in defining the physical attributes of visual
quality. What one designer may consider important, another may disregard. The range of
criteria offered to the evaluator for preference ranking may not be indicative of his actual
preference. His sophistication in this situation may be overestimated or underestimated, thus
forcing a middle-of-the-road response. As a result, the evaluation becomes indicative of an
average landscape with average likes and dislikes being identified as areas of high or low visual
preference.
An integral aspect in the attempt to develop workable assessment methodologies of the
coastal zone is the identification of the users of the visual resource in question. Recognizing
that each group of users will have differing motives for engaging the coastal environment, it
seems consistent to assume that their perception and thus their attitude toward its visual
content will vary from group to group and situation to situation. In general, coastal users can
be broadly classified as permanent dwellers, part-time dwellers, and visitors, While it is
recognized that this classification is much too broad for discrete characterizations, it will serve
to point up one of the problems inherent in any attempt to gain consensus regarding the
visual quality of the coastal zone.
Permanent dwellers are those who live in close proximity to the coastline and are
employed there, as in any inland community, or who have retired there because of the
amenities and life style offered by the existence of the coastal resources. In this respect,
conflicts of perception and attitudes as to what is the proper visual quality stance to take may
continually be at odds. Those earning a living in the area may desire to see further economic
development at the expense of visual quality because of the potential for an increase in
socio-economic status. On the other hand, retirees who hope to spend their remaining years in
relative peace and quiet would be loath to see further development of the coastal areas from
the perspective that it would negatively affect the visual environment of their retirement
aspirations.
Part-time dwellers may be classified as those who own or rent cottages or mobile homes
along the coast for extended periods of use-mostly the summer months. In essence, this
corresponds to the second home concept where the family may spend the greater portion of
the vacation period on the coast while actually residing permanently in an inland community.
These individuals' desires appear to fall somewhere between the adverse positions of the
permanent residents. This position may be described as sufficient economic and social
facilities to make the transition from inland dwelling to coastal dwelling convenient while
maintaining a natural environment of sufficient quality for the enjoyment of the more active
outdoor recreational aspects, e.g., boating, fishing, and swimming, without a large degree of
controls or other people. Of all the groups, they appear to be the most elite in their desires

Assessing the Visual Quality of the Coastal Zone

and they are the most difficult to satisfy. Because of their desire to maintain both the
socio-economic situation of their permanent dwelling and the high visual quality of the
unspoiled coastal environment, they often place planners in the difficult situation of deciding
whether to trade off comfort for environmental quality or vice versa.
The third group of users is the visitors. These are mostly recreationists who can be
separated into individuals who rent a camping space for a period of a week or two, to those
who camp only on week-ends, to day trippers. Each has different requirements and thus
places different demands on the visual quality of the coastal area. Those camping the longest
require more facilities in terms of creature comforts, yet they tend to desire a close proximity
to the more natural areas of the coastline. The week-end camper needs fewer facilities in terms
of creature comforts but requires more action-oriented recreation activities, e.g., swimming,
boating, and play areas. Finally, there are the day trippers who come to the coastal area to
recreate for the day, with the intention of returning to the place of residence in the evening.
The concern here is almost totally centered around heavy use facilities like picnic areas,
bathing beaches, playgrounds, and the like. While their visual quality requirements may not be
as demanding in the sense of natural areas as other users, they require far more variety.
Because of this demand for variety and their large numbers, relative to other groups, they
potentially will be the most difficult to deal with in a mutually satisfactory manner.
Varying socio-economic situations and use intention would then seem to be major
influential factors in any attempt to successfully assess the visual quality of the coastal zone.
While the groups discussed above can be identified and attempts made to identify their stance
regarding the value of the visual resource of the coastal zone, the problem is further
accentuated by the fact that they do not utilize the coastal areas as separate entities. Rather,
there is much interaction among groups in terms of dwelling location, shopping facilities,
social services, and recreation facilities. The most apparent difference is the intensity or lack
of intensity a certain coastal element will receive from any one group at any moment in time.
This leads to problems for coastal planners in that they are forced to react to political
pressures similar to those any community planning agency would face. In this situation, the
problem is magnified because of heavy seasonal use and the relatively fragile physical
ecological characters of the coastal area. Once destroyed, it is not likely that remedial
reactions to correct the situation will have much effect. At a minimum, the cost of such
actions would be extremely high, both in monetary terms and social reactions.
One observation in relation to the development of methods to assess the visual quality
of coastal areas is that, for all practical purposes, they are still theory. While many have been
tested and have been replicated, the results have not been applied to real life planning
situations. They have been suggested as approaches to take and results to consider, but they
have not been processed into the comprehensive planning procedures. In cases where this
attempt has been made, the results have not been processed through the implementation
procedure nor have they stood the scrutiny of numerous review procedures. While almost
everyone agrees that visual quality is an important aspect of the planning process, few have
been successful in gaining its acceptance on a par with economic, social, and environmental
concerns. The implication of these and other similar problems is that more objective and
rigorous techniques should be developed so that effective evaluation becomes the rule rather
than the exception.

References
1. This work is a result of research sponsored by NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department of
Commerce, under Grant #04-3-158-39 and by the NewYork Sea Grant Institute. The US
Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes
notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon.

1 5

COASTAL LANDFORMS AND SCENIC ANALYSIS: A REVIEW (1)

John P. Felleman
State University of New York
College of Environmental Science and Forestry
School of Landscape Architecture
Syracuse, New York 13210
illustrations by Grayson Jones

Abstract. Scenic quality is related to man's perception of natural and built form. A
review is made of three visually related landform description approaches: numerical,
geometric, and geomorphic. Diversity and complexity of coastal features are examined.
Desirable analysis approaches are found to be sensitive to varying scales, offshore,
beach, bluff and upland elements.

Landform Description
Linton has described scenery as "the form of the ground," and "the mantle of forests
and moorlands, farms and factories, natural vegetation and human artifacts by which the hard
rock body of the landscape is clothed" (2).
Scenic perception of a landscape involves the generation, transmission, and inter-
pretation of a visual message. This process is illustrated in Figure 1.
Of these four perception elements, both landscape and visibility are strongly influenced
by the form of the earth's surface. Therefore, landscape visual quality analyses need a
foundation of terrain description. A major difficulty in the field of visual quality assessment
arises from the inherently personal character of view interpretations coupled with the absence
of a common descriptive vocabulary. Many aesthetic terms may apply to the character of the
earth's surface, for example, unity, variety, contrast, uniqueness, grain, and texture. These

Figure 1. Scenic perception process
3
2 2

1 Landscape--a composition of natural and man-made forms
2Visibility-the physical view zone, and distance relationships between viewer and landscape
3Viewer Environment-the local surroundings, viewer mobility, and sequence of views
41nterpretation-the viewer's psychological analysis of a view's content and meaning

Felleman
terms, by themselves, are relative abstractions that do not convey a discrete image. It is
therefore highly desirable to develop terminology which conveys images of the various forms
that comprise landscape scenes.
A literature review in the fields of physical geography and landscape assessment reveals a
wide variety of analytical approaches to describing surface terrain. One way to categorize
these techniques is from the standpoint of abstraction. Three general groupings based on
degrees of abstraction can be differentiated: numerical indices, geometrical forms, and
geomorphic origins.
Numerical techniques are the most abstract methods utilized. Use of these techniques to
describe terrain characteristics has gained widespread support in recent years because of their
relative ease of application to extensive areas, and compatibility with computerized data
analysis. Military researchers have developed parametric approaches to terrain evaluation for
planning large scale troop movements. The QREC (US Army Quartermaster Research and
Engineering Center), in a large regional study, utilized simple topographic map measurements
such as elevation, slope, and number of divides to quickly group areas into twenty-five distinct
terrain regions which contain similar surface characteristics (3).
Numerical measures have recently been used in scenic analyses. "Landform has
consistently been evaluated on the basis of relative relief-the greater the relative relief, the
higher the scenic value" (4). Leopold, in his aesthetic comparison of river valleys, translated a
wide spectrum of descriptions into a composite rating system. One of his prime measures was
"landscape scale," which relates the height of adjacent mountains to the width of the valley
floor. Numeric measurements thus are used as an indicator of topographic enclosure and
contrast (5). Figure 2 illustrates this basic scale relationship.

Figure 2. Valley proportions

Yosemite Valley Section
1:11/2 Floor-Wall Proportions

Luray, Virginia
15:1 Floor-Wall Proportions
(after Litton, p. 271)

Several researchers have undertaken statistical correlations between scenery dimensions
and viewer reactions. Shafer took measurements from ground level photographs which
portrayed actual views. Factors measured on the photographs included perimeters and areas of
vegetation, nonvegetation and water. Study results included linear equations relating
photographic dimensions to scenic preference (6).
Zube, Pitt and Anderson have related measurements from topographic maps to viewer
reactions, both in the field and to photographs of the field scenes. Of the twenty-three scenic
factors studied, seven were directly related to landform: relative relief ratio, absolute-relative
relief, mean slope distribution, topographic texture, ruggedness number, spatial definition
index and mean elevation (7).
These and related numerical methods hold great promise for advancing the rigor of
scenic evaluation. However, by themselves, they inherently contain several difficulties.
"The fundamental objection is a belief that landscape cannot be effectively valued by
simply measuring and weighing components from a map or aerial photo-
graph... problems arise in deciding on weighting... the landscape contributions of
components do not increase in direct proportion to the amount of that compo-
nent.. ." (8).

18~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Coastal Landforms and Scenic Analysis

A second problem is the difficulty in conveying a clear mental image of the landscape
via mathematical measures. Such an image is critical for communications, planning and design.
The process of numerical abstraction is at least partially irreversible. Geometric-based
landscape descriptions help overcome this latter difficulty.
Geometric descriptions of terrain are widely used by physical geographers. Earthforms
include both hill projections and valley depressions. Three-dimensional hill form shapes can be
classified as being a hemi-spheroid (round), elipsoid (linear), or complex. It is often
convenient, analytically and graphically, to project complex three-dimensional forms into two
dimensions, plan view and cross section. In cross section, hills can be classified as being
concave, convex, or concave-convex. These generalized forms are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Generalized hill forms

Convex Concave Concave-Convex
(after Grietzer, 1944, p. 96)

Valleys have also been classified on the basis of geometric cross section and plan view
configuration. An evolutionary generalization of valley cross section hypothesizes that initially
"young" valleys are steep and "V" shaped. After an equilibrium stream profile is achieved,
lateral erosion continues and the section shape is transformed to a rounded, and finally a
broad "U". Valley sections can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. (Glaciation can also carve
"U'" valleys).
The plan view configuration of drainage patterns is an evolutionary function of geology,
climate, and stage of development. Way has illustrated sixteen basic patterns such as dendritic,
rectangular, parallel, and radial (9). Horton applied numerical analysis to stream patterns,
deriving such parameters as "drainage density" and "stream frequency" (10). An extensive
exposition of this subject has been written by Haggett and Chorley.
Cressey's Landform Map of New York State is typical of macro-descriptions based on
prevalent topographic relief. Cressey's landform categories include: level plains, rolling plains,
hills, rounded mountains, rugged mountains, and lakes (11). The geometric terms are clarified
by using numerical values for slope and local relief ranges. A similar mapping system has been
completed for the entire North Atlantic watershed for the Corps of Engineers at a scale of one
inch = 40 miles (12).
In contrast to purely geometric descriptions, geomorphic classifications of terrain
features combine form, evolution, and physical properties. Geomorphology is the "science of
landform" (13). It is a branch of geology dealing with the many processes of erosion and
deposition and how they have shaped the earth's surface throughout geologic time.
Belcher and Lueder pioneered in the use of aerial photographs to classify landforms for
engineering and land planning decisions. Way has focused these methods on site development.
He defines landform as follows:
"... landforms are terrain features formed by natural processes which have a definable
composition and range of physical and visual characteristics that occur wherever the
landform is found. Thus, specific distinctions can be made among landform units, by
which to describe unique topography, composition or structure, or capabilities." (14)
To illustrate geomorphic processes, the block diagram of Figure 4 depicts some of the
landforms shaped at the margins of continental glaciers.
Way identifies geomorphic forms on the basis of bedrock, climate, topography,
drainage, vegetation, and land use patterns. For each type of bedrock, such as sedimentary, he

Felleman

Figure 4. Glacial moraine landforms

�szs

TM-terminal moraine D-delta
RM-recessional moraine DK-delta kame
IM-interlobate moraine S--shoreline
GM--ground moraine LB-lake bottom
E-esker OP-outwash plain
DR-drumlins K-kettle

(after Strahler and Strahler, 1973, p. 444)

reviews the type of soil associated with the various terrain features. General interpretations for
development of landforms can then be made, including: sewage disposal, solid wastes,
trenching, excavating and grading, construction materials, landslide susceptibility, ground
water supply, pond construction, foundations, and highway construction.
Howlett and Felleman have incorporated the mapping of local landforms in the analysis
of high voltage transmission line routing and impact. As shown in Figure 5, the landforms
served as a multipurpose basis for ranking local visual quality (contrast, uniqueness), for
delineating the proposed facility's potential visibility (skyline; water crossing .. . ), and for
anticipating construction and ecological difficulties (steep slopes, marshes .. .) (15).

Figure 5. Environmental route location

DATA NET.S:ODUIAL0

SYNTHESIZED VISiLITY EC OLOGIC
DATA SETS:E|ADACTED

TRANSPARENT LAND VI
EVALUATION j

OVERLAYS: ~.2

Coastal Landforms and Scenic Analysis
The geomorphic approach has the advantage of bridging the gap between description of
visual forms and the behavioral characteristics of the terrain which is a necessary basis for land
* development decisions. Methods utilized in geomorphic classifications are more complex than
those needed for numerical or geometric descriptions. Due to the uniqueness of local
landform evolution the resultant analyses appear to pose problems for large scale planning
generalizations.
It is apparent that the scale of a visual analysis study area will, in part, influence the
selection of a terrain description approach. For example, it would be very costly to delineate
Way's detailed geomorphic landforms for an entire statewide study. The issue of scale is
important because resource and planning studies often entail decisions, such as facility
location and site design requiring varying levels of informational detail.
Researchers in geography and geomorphology have addressed this problem. by
developing nested hierarchies of terminology. These are analogous to the systems used in
botanical taxonomy. One of the most comprehensive of such systems was proposed by Brink,.
et al. for Australia. Table 1 summarizes his definition of "land units" (16).

Table 1. Land unit hierarchy

Name Description Scale

Land Zone ;major climatic region unspecified
Land Division continental structure 1:15,000,000 (15m)
Land Province large assembly of forms 1:5-1:15m
Land Region small range of surface forms having 1:1m-1:5m
undergone comparable geomorphic
evolution
Land Systems recurrent pattern of land facets 1:250,000-1:1 m
Land Facet one or more land element, 1:10,000-1:80,000
part of a homogeneous landscape
Land Element simplest part of a landscape, 1:10,000
uniform soil, form, vegetation

(after Mitchell, 1973, p. 48)

By comparison, Cressey's "land form categories" of New York State (1:3,168,000) are
roughly equivalent to Brink's "land regions", and the Strahlers' glacial landforms are similar to
"land facets". Project design is usually carried out using detailed terrain information. An
element can relate to areal, linear, or point features. The concept of "land element" is
illustrated in Figure 6 with a longitudinal cross section through a drumlin landform.
Most aesthetic resource studies appear to utilize one to three scales of landform analysis.
The N.A.R. work, cited above, incorporated two levels:
"landscape series" - large area, general impression;
"landscape systems" - series subdivision, dominant earth forms. (17)
The N.A.R. earthform analysis at the "systems" level concentrated on: areal extent,
contrast created by vertical relief, water-land interfaces, and character of spatial enclosure.
The character of a prototypical coastal "landscape system" consisting of a horizontal sandbar
and/or marsh on the mid-Atlantic coastline is a "landscape systems" example.
A second example of scale hierarchy is contained in the National Forest Service's Visual
Management System. At a gross scale, the study defines 16 major physiographic areas in the
Pacific Northwest. These areas are called "character types" with common vegetation and land,
rock, and water forms. At a finer scale, a further differentiation is made. For example, in the

Felleman

Western Cascades type, four "character subtypes" have been mapped: gorge lands, steep
mountain lands, foothill lands, rolling plateau lands. Individual landforms and landform
elements are the third scale of analysis. These local forms and elements comprise the actual
landscape scenes which are perceived (18).

Figure 6. Landscape elements
ELEMENT TYPES:

crIo Areal

,Itt
TOPOGRAPHIC PLAN a ooooooo Linear

Point
VERTICAL SECTION

A clear approach to describing terrain features is a valuable step in developing a visual
assessment method. There is no consensus on methods for articulating surface characteristics
or terminology for describing them. Tests of all three approaches: numerical, geometric, and
geomorphic will be necessary to determine a practical means or combination of methods for
defining visual terrain features of New York's coastline.
A visual assessment approach ideally is suitable for both area-wide activity allocation
planning and local site design decisions. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a multitiered
framework which aggregates characteristic groupings of similar features at the macro scale and
utilizes individual landforms or sets of landforms at the local scale. The latter would be
applicable to analysis of actual planning and design relating to landscape scenes.

Coastal Features
Physical geographers and geologists have long studied shore zone processes. This interest
is due both to the importance of shores to man and to the complexity of coastal dynamics.
Three sets of factors interact to generate natural coastal forms. These determinants include
energy (changing sea levels, wind, waves . . ), shore zone material (stationary and moving),
and the geometry of submerged and upland landforms (19). In this century, the impact of
man (filling, structures, dredging ... ) has constituted a fourth major shaping force.
The complexity of coastal geomorphology arises, in large part, from the relatively rapid
(geological time) response to active forces. For example, Shepard and Wanless (20) have
illustrated the dramatic changes in barrier island form and location following major tropical
storms.
Numerous classification approaches for coastal forms have been developed since
Johnson's benchmark efforts in 1919. Some of these systems distinguish between shoreside

Coastal Landforms and Scenic Analysis

uplands that are growing and those that are being diminished. Bird has illustrated prototypical
coastal landform elements for two diverse sets of geomorphic situations: cliffed erosional, and
depositional. These are shown in the cross sections of Figures 7A, B.
Figure 7 depicts the general relationship of the water-land interface. However, it is in
the plan view (aerial or map) that the great variety of coastal forms is revealed. Figure 8
illustrates one approach to the geomorphic classification of depositional features. These
features affect our perception of shore areas by providing variety and spatial enclosure.
Shepard and Wanless (21) have developed an extensive glossary of shoreline terms.

Figure 7A. Erosional shoreline

COASTAL WATERS | SHORE UPLANDS
offshore j foreshore __ back-
_ _- -- hore

-' n e a r s h c r e_ _.-- _ -_ _
~. c ~m � .
' -- D
zz )beac

Figure 7B. Depositional shoreline

COASTAL WATERS BARRIER LAGOON UPLANDS

,l;wt'L.C off d shoare bar yr -

(after Bird, 1969, p. 1 )

Figure 8. Depositional features

bay-head, beach ,bayhead delta

:- . '^ay--head barri bay-siade

/'~'~--~-~nrhl� q~' .... I [~ ~�cc~:'~mid. bay

i cuspa le spit A_:; ',.d---t:

(after King, 1972, p. 503)
:igure:8. Depositional featu23
~~~bay-edbahIbyha et

Felleman

The shoretypes of the Great Lakes in Michigan and Wisconsin have been analyzed in
small scale cross section to assist local governments and property owners in making efficient,
environmentally sound development decisions (22).' Rather then typing landforms, these
studies merely identify changes in section configuration and shoreline materials. Figure 9
illustrates the Wisconsin Study output.
Pincus has researched the erosional characteristics of the Ohio shore of Lake Erie. His
analysis, based on geology, soils, and air photo interpretations begins with classifying
dominant shore features. Although not intended as a visual analysis, the Pincus study
demonstrates the multipurpose usefulness of a rigorous geomorphic landform data base.
Studies of coastal aesthetics are only recently emerging as important inputs to land use
decisions. Litton's "Visual Landscape Units of the Lake Tahoe Region," in Scenic Analysis of
the Lake Tahoe Region (23); Looking at the, Vineyard: A Visual Study for a Changing Island;
and the Environmental Report for the Arizona Station Transmission System are recent
examples of visual inputs to land use planning and decision-making.
The N.A.R. study, referred to previously, included visual contrast as a major
determinant of visual quality. Table 2 contains the study's relative generalizations of the large
scale scenic shorefront regions.

Figure 9. Wisconsin shoreline study

Shore edge section 1t ;

i - :-;' I '
4,

Shore element description matrix

WET BEACH DRY BEACH BLUFF UPLAND
sand to50' then sand / ravel
MATERIAL gravelI/ouders with stretches clay clay
o shoreline of sand
100 ft out to
WIDTH 6 ft depth 30-60 feet
rolling to steep
SLOPE 4-6% - : 080-100%/ at drainage areas
birch, aspen, .nazel blrch, aspen.hazel
VEGETATION none whitesouce. in hrite spruce
erosion tree areas maole
erosion-serious
WATER clear vhnere veaetation
and small sand-:: ::
stone Dockets are
EROSION absent vegetation
temporary
~~~~~HEIGHT ~varies from
30 to 80 ft
USE

(After Zube and Dega Associates, 1964)

: 24

Coastal Landforms and Scenic Analysis

Table 2. N.A.R. coastal scenery evaluations

Internal Spatial Variety,
Location Character Contrast Enclosure

Eastern Maine Embayed, Rocky High High
Central New England Linear, Rocky Medium Medium
Southern New England Sand Beach-Bluff Low Low
Mid-Atlantic Horizontal Sand
Bar-Marsh Low Low
Urban

One of the most comprehensive scenic analyses of a US coast has recently been
completed for Long Island Sound by Roy Mann Associates, Inc. The study was undertaken
for the National Park Service and the New England River Basins Commission (N.E.R.B.C.).
In an interim report, the commission identified three shore zone cross sectional types:
flatland, rise, bluff; and three plan view shoreline configurations: straight, projecting seaward,
and projecting inland. These simple shapes result in nine possible three-dimensional
combinations (24).
The Mann report deals with the subject in much greater depth. Topographic complexity,
shoreline complexity, and uniqueness are just three of eighteen natural and manmade criteria
that were assessed (methodology unspecified) (25). Utilizing the fact that much of the
Sound's coast consists of submerged upland hills, the study uses "headlands" (shoreline high
points) to delineate "shorescape units" between protruding headlands. The scale of these
units, averaging one to two miles (1.6-3.3 km), coincides well with an individual's fore and
midground visual perception zone. Adjacent shorescape units of similar character or between
major headlands are aggregated into 40 "coastal reaches" (26).
The Mann study does not 'identify' individual landforms. The study utilizes twelve
prototypical "shorescape types" which consist of adjacent, visually reinforcing landforms and
landform elements. These are illustrated in Figure 10. Also depicted are the study's
conclusions regarding the visual distance at which each type is aesthetically important. Shore
views were analyzed primarily from a boater's position (methodology unspecified).
The complexity of natural shoreline development processes has led to a wide variety of
dynamic coastal land and water features. In developing a visual assessment approach for New
York's shorelines, a nested hierarchy of scales will be necessary. Initial large scale groupings
can be made on the basis of dominant topographic features and shoreline configurations.
Sampling and testing of methods described previously will be necessary to ensure that shore
zone features are clearly differentiated and communicated. The use of geomorphic terms is
desirable where feasible to provide a linkage to related erosional and land development
analyses. A comprehensive system must include offshore, beach, bluff, and upland
components. In addition embayment-enclosure relationships must be analyzed.

New York's Sea Grant Shoreline
New York is unique among Sea Grant States in the diversity of its Great Lakes and
Atlantic Shoreline. The coastal aesthetic research being conducted by the School of
Landscape Architecture is designed to develop assessment and planning methods for state,
regional and local utilization. The State's shoreline has been divided into nineteen shorescape
provinces based on geomorphic features. Ground and aerial photographic studies have been
made of local features. Analyses are underway for selected sites in each province to test
landform units, landscape dimensions, visibility and viewer preference approaches to
landscape description and assessment.

Felleman

Figure 10. Shorescape types

points shore
eninsulas drumlins low /
islandls ~rnbolo an, eroding moderate flat
ilnsarokns hea dlands aand s bluff s rise shoreland

SI4ORESCAPE
'YPES
VIEW
IMPORTANCE

distant view

middle view

near view .. : : : :: ": : . : i

barrier
beaches river
bars open mouth simple complex
marshes sits embayment esuary coe cove

SHORESCAPE
TYPES
KEY:
VIEW
ve eI s of
IMPORTANCE importance

distant view .:. I: i::::n:x n .nrmal

middle lew w ediam

. near alew '.'. _.:.:.:-.....:..' _ :n: : ::::high

(after Mann)

References and Notes

1. This work is a result of research sponsored by NOAA Office of Sea Grant, Department of
Commerce, under Grant #04-3-158-39, and by the New York Sea Grant Institute. The US
Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes
notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon.

2. E.H. Zube, Scenic Resources and the Landscape Continuum: Identification and
Measurement (Clark University, 1973), p. 35.

3. Colin Mitchell, Terrain Evaluation-The World's Landscape (Longman Group LTD.,
London, 1973), p. 81.

4. E.H. Zube, Scenic Resources and the Landscape Continuum: Identification and
Measurement (Clark University, 1973), p. 39.

5. Luna B. Leopold, Natural History 78(8) (1969).

6. E.L. Shafer, Jr., et al., Journal of Leisure Research 1(1) (1969).

7. E.H. Zube, D.G. Pitt and T.W. Anderson, Perception and Measurement of Scenic
Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley (Institute for Man and His
Environment, 1974), p. 39.

Coastal Landforms and Scenic Analysis
8. B.C. Wallace, Regional Studies 8 (1974), p. 302.
9. Douglas S. Way, Terrain Analysis (Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa.,
1973), p.8.
10. W.D. Thornbury, Principles of Geomorphology (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
1969), p. 123.
11. John H. Thompson, Geography of New York State (Syracuse University Press, Syracuse,
New York, 1966), p. 49.
12. Research Planning and Design Associates, Inc., North Atlantic Regional Water Resource
Study Appendix N: Visual and Cultural Environment, 1970 (reprinted May, 1972).
13. W.D. Thombury, Principles of Geomorphology (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
1969), p. 1.
14. Douglas S. Way, Terrain Analysis (Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa.,
1973), p. 2.
15. B. Howlett and J. Felleman, Application to the State of New York Public Service
Commission for Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, Exhibit 4
Environmental Impact (Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Albany, New York, 1973),
p. 4-2.
16. Colin Mitchell, Terrain Evaluation-The World's Landscape (Longman Group, LTD.,
London, 1973), p. 48.
17. Research Planning and Design Associates, Inc., North Atlantic Regional Water Resource
Study Appendix N: Visual and Cultural Environment, 1970 (reprinted May, 1972).
18. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, National Forest Landscape Management, 2(462) (US Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, DC, April, 1974), Chapter 1, pp. 5-9.
19. H.J. Pincus, Great Lakes Basin (A.A.A.S., Washington, 1962), p. 123.
20. F.P. Shepard and H.R. Wanless, Our Changing Coastlines (McGraw-Hill, New York,
1971), p. 64.
21. Ibid.,,pp. 551-561.
22. Zube and Dega Associates, Wisconsin's Lake Superior Shoreline (Madison, 1964).
23. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and US Forest Service, South Lake Tahoe, California,
1971.
24. New England River Basins Commission, Scenic and Cultural Resources (N.E.R.B.C., New
Haven, Feb. 1974), p. 8-9.
25. Roy Mann, People and the Sound: Shoreline Appearance and Design (National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, April, 1975), p. 42.
26. Ibid., pp. 45,46.

Reprinted from Proceedings of the Workshop on the Role of Vegetation in Stabilization of the Great Lakes
Shoreline, Great Lakes Basin Commission Standing Committee on Coastal Zone Management and US
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Chicago, IL, December 1976. Published by the Great
Lakes Basin Commission, PO Box 999, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. 1977.

VIEWING NEW YORK'S COAST:
RESOURCES, RESEARCH ISSUES, AND "PREVIEW"
A COMPUTER MODELING TECHNIQUE
John P. Felleman
State University of New York
College of Environmental Science and Forestry
School of Landscape Architecture
Syracuse, New York 13210

Scenic Considerations of New York's Coast
New York's coast, with the exception of Niagara Falls, contains few areas of
spectacularly unique scenery. Rather, its extensive shores contain a wide variety of subtle,
smaller scale, natural features which are primarily a product of glaciation and related sea level
changes.. A quick overview illustrates the diversity of coastal character.
Beginning on the Pennsylvania border, the Erie lake plain has gentle upland slopes
terminating in a low, linear rock bluff on the shore edge. The Niagara River, with its dramatic
gorge and falls leads to the western Lake Ontario Plain, which is very similar in landform to
Lake Erie. Local variety occurs at the mouth of tributary streams. In the Rochester
metropolitan area the rock bluff gives way to a series of lake-edge wetlands and bays which
are separated from the lake by a series of baymouth bars and spits. Continuing eastward, the
lake edge intersects a region of drumlins, resulting in embayments and highly dissected
sedimentary bluffs. As the lake edge turns northward, a large crescent-shaped barrier bar has
formed enclosing inland wetlands. The lake terminates at the St. Lawrence River, its entrance
containing the famous Thousand Islands.
Southern New York's Westchester and Bronx shore is a submerged rock coast of
numerous small bays and offshore rock features. The present Manhattan shoreline is entirely
man defined. Long Island, the largest island adjoining the continental United States, has four
distinct physical zones. On the Sound side, western Long Island consists of a series of large
bays. Proceeding eastward, the shore becomes more linear and its edge is sharply defined by a
sand bluff. The Atlantic side is characterized by the eastern seaboard barrier island. Its
western end separates the ocean and the extensive Jamaica Bay wetlands.
New York's population centers have always clustered along its shoreline. Water supply,
transportation, climate, recreation, and amenities have served as strong attractions for a broad
spectrum of land uses. In recent years, growing mobility and recreation demands, increasing
concern for environmental protection, and the need for fuel transport and water edge energy
generation have led to a series of conflicts over land use management in the coastal zone. An
additional concern in New York has been the protection of unique shore edge agricultural
systems, vineyards along the Great Lakes, and potato, truck and duck farms on Long Island.
The pioneering Hudson River Valley Commission established the significance and
legitimacy of scenic issues in governmental management of the water edge. The Commission
was charged with master planning and project review functions for all activities within a visual
corridor up to one-half mile from the River's edge. Similar efforts were undertaken for Lake
Tahoe and the San Francisco Bay.

Felleman

As environmental concerns became a popular issue, the National Environmental Policy
Act reiterated the importance of aesthetic concerns:
"... it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government to ... (2) assure for all Americans
safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings." (S10162)
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires that aesthetic values be considered along
with ecological, cultural, and economic factors in land use decisions.
Recognition of the importance of scenery identifies a complex problem area. N.E.P.A.
calls for the development of methods and procedures,
"... which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be
given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical
considerations" (S102B).
The paucity of scenery description and evaluation techniques available to state and local
decision makers has led to the establishment of the School of Landscape Architecture's
research program as an integral component of New York's Sea Grant planning effort.

A Model of Scenic Perception
A simple model of scenic perception has been developed to help structure a
comprehensive research program. The model draws heavily on recent research efforts in
environmental psychology.2 Figure 1 illustrates the model's components.

Figure 1. Scenic perception process
13

1 andscape-a composition of natural and man-made forms
2Visibility-the physical view zone, and distance relationships between viewer and landscape
3Viewer Environment-the local surroundings, viewer mobility, and sequence of views
4Interpretation-the viewer's psychological analysis of a view's content and meaning

The landscape composition consists of natural and manmade elements. Although
individually these elements are readily defined and quantified, they occur in an almost infinite
number of combinations of patterns, textures, and colors. Research by Shafer, Zube, and
others has begun to clarify the significance of some of the fundamental landscape types with
respect to viewer response.3,4
The term visibility generally encompasses both potential and actual viewsheds. The
former is solely a function of surface topography, while the latter incorporates the reductions
in sight distance caused by local surface features and climatic conditions.
Litton, in his pioneering work Forest Landscape Descriptions, postulated three general
landscape perception zones. As distance from the observer increases from foreground to
midground to background, viewer attention shifts from detail to forms to edges. Thus, viewer
position has a significant effect on how any landscape is perceived.
Viewer environment includes those local factors which provide the viewer with
supporting or complicating inputs. These may include visual, sound, olfactory or social
conditions such as crowding on a scenic beach. In addition, whether the viewer is stationary, a
pedestrian, or in a boat or car may have an important impact on landscape perception.
The final interpretation of the observed scene's content and meaning is a psychological
function of the individual. Each of us is unique; however, research by Zube and Boster and
others has shown that there are some strong similarities of landscape preference among sample
groups.6

Viewing New York's Coast
The first two elements of the model, landscape composition and visibility, are
determined by topography, land use, and vegetation. In general, Americans prefer scenes that
are natural and include water. Analysts are only beginning to examine response differences
between vegetative patterns, and among various shore configurations. Of particular concern in
coastal areas is the impact of clearing, construction, and resultant erosion of water edge bluffs.
One of the central issues in many scenic quality controversies is visibility. Visual access
to the water is a prime consideration of residential, commercial, and recreation developments.
In contrast, a growing segment of the public is concerned with preserving or enhancing the
natural character of the shore edge. Planning and design proposals frequently incorporate
selected clearing, screening, and vegetative buffers.
The state of the art of scenery analysis has not progressed to the point where either
quantitative methods or expert opinion satisfy the recent mandates for full consideration of
aesthetic considerations. Recent legislation, including the Coastal Zone Management Act,
requires citizen participation in all phases of coastal decision making. The situation is
particularly, acute for major development proposals affecting large scale scenes, viewed from
multiple locations by a variety of publics. In these situations it is highly desirable for
environmental managers to have the capability of simulating existing and proposed views for
the evaluation of alternative courses of action.

PREVIEW-Computer Generated Landscape Perspectives
The US Forest Service has been a leader in the development of landscape assessment
techniques for the multipurpose management of millions of acres of National Forest lands. In
response to recent controversies regarding the visual impact of clearcutting and other timber
harvest techniques, Erik Myklestad and Alan Wagar developed PREVIEW, a program for
plotting large scale landscape scenes.7
During the past year, the School of Landscape Architecture's Sea Grant program has
been adapting this technique for use in coastal applications. The following is a brief
description of the program's capabilities.
Input data is coded by means of a coordinate grid of square intersection points. Three sets of
information may be incorporated: topography, utilizing elevations of grid intersections;
surface character (vegetation type, density, etc.); and linear features such as roads, shoreline,
and property boundaries. Each data set can be translated by the program into a
mathematically correct, computer line plot perspective drawing from a given position looking
at a selected point. Figure 2 illustrates the topography output, while Figure 3 is an example of
surface character. A simple change in a "command card" can generate a different view of the
study and permits analysis from multiple viewing positions. A typical application would be a
sequence along a waterfront road.
Dynamic modelling is possible via subroutines which compute the growth of coniferous
and deciduous trees. Again, a user-defined "command card" can generate a time sequence of
plots showing anticipated effects of forest management practices.
Additional analysis flexibility is provided through user control of plot scale and vertical
exaggeration. The latter is a powerful tool for clarifying subtle aspects of scenes.
To make the program more useful in coastal areas, a series of modifications and
improvements is being explored. These include:
1.Development of map measurement techniques to aid in optimal selection of grid
scale (particularly critical at the shore edge);
2. Coupling PREVIEW with other visual modelling techniques such as VIEWIT8 to aid
in selection of visual control points;
3. Modification of surface character and growth subroutines to model local conditions,
and the addition of architectural elements; and
4. Enhancement of plotted output through the use of color rendering, photo montages
and other techniques to improve communication of existing and proposed
conditions.

3 1

Felleman

Figure 2. Topography output

� ..-. '.'. . '. : - .'':.--.: '.~;".": ';;::

Figure 3. Surface character

The major thrust of our research efforts is to develop scenic assessment methods and
techniques directly applicable to regional and local situations.: It is our hope that researchers
and managers concerned with visual quality issues in the coastal zone will join with us in
developing and testing this promising approach to understanding a complex problem area.

References
1. Felleman, J. Coastal Landforms and Scenic Analysis: A Review of the Literature with a
Preliminary Examination of New York's Shoreline. Syracuse: New York Sea Grant
Program, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Working Paper No. 4,
1975.
2. For reference to this growing research field see Nieman, T.J. and Viohl, R. The
Description, Classification and Assessment of Visual Landscape Quality. Monticello, Ill:
Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography, 1975.
3. Shafer, E.W. Jr. "Perception of Natural Environments," In Environment and Behavior,
Vol. 1, No. 1, June 1969, pp. 71-82.
4. Zube, E.H., Pitt, P.G., and Anderson, T.W. Perception and Measurement of Scenic
Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Pub. # R74-1. Amherst: Institute for
Man and the Environment, 1974.
5. Litton, R.B. Forest Landscape Description and Inventories: A Basis for Land Planning and
Design. Berkeley: US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, P.S.W.-49, 1968.

Viewing New York's Coast

6. Boster, R.S. "Methodologies for Scenic Assessment," In Visual Quality and the Coastal
Zone-Conference Proceedings. Syracuse: School of Landscape Architecture, SUNY
College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Sea Grant, pp. 78-102.
7. Myklestad E. and Wagar, J.A. Jr. Instructions for PREVIEW-A Computer Aid for Visual
Management of Forested Landscapes. (Available from US Forest Service, SUNY College of
Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210.)
8. Travis, M.R. et al. VIEWIT: A Computation of Seen Areas, Slope, and Aspect for Land Use
Planning. Berkeley: US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station, P.S.W.-1I, 1975.

Reprinted from Barrier Islands and Beaches, Technical Proceedings of the 1976 Barrier Islands Workshop,
The Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Annapolis,
MD, May 1976. Published by the Conservation Foundation, 1717 Massachusetts Ave., Washington, DC
20036.

AESTHETIC AND RECREATIONAL FACTORS
IN BARRIER ISLAND PLANNING
John P. Felleman
State University of New York
College of Environmental Science and Forestry
School of Landscape Architecture
Syracuse, New York 13210

"Here is the battleground between the ocean and the land. Here is the surf, which varies from
gentle and playful to awesomely violent. Here the tides move forward and back, stranding the
shells of clams and sand dollars and horseshoe crabs. Here is a rich assembly of easily visible
life, the fascinating and beautiful creatures, from the darkness-loving ghost crab to the
voracious herring gull, that has learned to survive on the battlefield."
(Jonathan Norton Leonard, "Atlantic Beaches")
This quote deals with an experience of the shore. If you reflect on your own experience,
you can call to mind lucid images of the shore, both first hand and vicarious as interpreted by
artists, poets, and naturalists. The latter were trying to capture a total essence of the dynamic
power, magnitude, beauty and complexity of the ocean's edge. An elusive goal.
I will concentrate on two areas of major interest. First, I'hypothesize that aesthetic and
recreation concerns are two inseparable, desirable and necessary facets of human experience.
Second, I would like to briefly highlight those current aspects of aesthetic and recreation
research which are significant to barrier island analysis and management.
An initial linkage between aesthetics and recreation can be made directly from working
concepts of each:
"Recreation refers primarily to creative leisure-time activities.. 'since the chief value of
recreation is that it balances the human organism physically and psychologically, . . . (it) must
be based on self choice, initiative, and spontaneity.' "
(Wagar, 1964)
In contrast, there are no widely accepted definitions of aesthetics (USEPA, 1973). If we
ignore philosophical discussions of art, and deal only with natural settings,
"The importance of aesthetic quality has revolved around the idea that people receive
psychological benefit from viewing, inhabiting, or otherwise experiencing attractive areas."
(Haskett, 1975)
Beauty, a central factor in aesthetics, has been defined as the,
". . aggregate of qualities in a thing which gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts
the mind or spirit."
(Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1960)
In natural settings, both psychological "balance" and physical exercise can be obtained
by pleasurably interacting with a stimulating environment.

Aesthetic Research
The majority of aesthetic research is primarily concerned with scenery evaluation.
Because of the dearth of clear definitions and widely accepted standards of quality, there is
much popular confusion related to issues of scenery evaluation. Researchers have found it
useful to develop models of the scenery perception process, an example of which is illustrated

Felleman

in Figure 1 (Felleman, 1976). Such models permit efforts to be focused on clarifying specific
components, such as description of natural forms or dynamic relationships between
components. An example of the latter would be the effect of local noise on a viewer's
judgment of a scene. As components and interrelationships are clarified, diagnostic and
predictive processes should emerge.

Figure 1. Scenic perception process
3

1Landscape-a composition:of natural and man-made forms
2Visibility-the physical view zone, and distance relationships between viewer and landscape
3Viewer Environment-the local surroundings, viewer mobility, and sequence of views
41 nterpretation-the viewer's psychological analysis of a view's contenteand meaning

Beginning with the 01962 'ORRRC (US Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission) report, Water for Recreation Values and Opportunities, and accelerating with
passage of the National Environmental Policy Act and its charge to federal agencies to,
... identify and develop methods and procedures... which will insure that presently
unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in
decision making,"
considerable attention has been given in the public and private sectors to describing,
measuring, and predicting the "quality" which user groups associate with their surroundings.
These studies have been oriented to aiding decision makers in the management of large land
areas, and the siting and designing of recreation and development projects.
Within the past five years visual analyses have become a standard element of regional
resource planning. The pioneering North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study (May,
1972) by the Corps of Engineers utilized regional physiographic characteristics and the scale
and pattern of urbanization to differentiate discrete visual units throughout the North
Atlantic Watershed. These descriptions were subsequently arrayed by naturalness, relief,
variety, and water edge to rank visual quality (Research Planning and Design Associates,
1967).
At a smaller regional scale, the Lake Tahoe study (Litton, 1971) combined measurable
features with an extensive analysis of the view from the basin's roads to spatially categorize a
range of visual management concerns ranging from preservation to rehabilitation.
The National Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have fully integrated
scenic analyses into their multipurpose management programs. The Forest Service has been an
international leader in developing a vocabulary and study tools (such as its computerized
VIEWIT program) to describe and analyze existing scenery, and to evaluate (and modify)
development proposals (Forest Services, 1974). The Office of Coastal Zone Management has
recently published a handbook on Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone (Mann, 1975).
These techniques and procedures are adaptable to both agency personnel, and citizens who
can participate through a variety of formats. For example, the Martha's Vineyard study
(Vineyard Open Land Foundation, 1973) utilized "mental maps" drawn by residents and
visitors to clarify perceptions of coastal and inland features. Extensive use has been made of
user-preference studies incorporating field visits, photographs, and color slides (Zube, 1974;
Viohl, 1975).

36 : : :::::

Aesthetic and Recreational Factors in Barrier Island Planning
Some general conclusions regarding this research are:
1.The aesthetic experience is a complex phenomenon involving the stimuli to the
observer (physical setting), the transmission of these stimuli to the observer, and
psychological perception and processing by the observer (Craik, 1970).
2. A good deal of aesthetic research has dealt solely with the visual component of
aesthetics (Mann, 1975). This is due in part to the visual usually being our dominant
sense, and in part to its being the easiest to document, and model (Litton et al., 1974,
p. 13).
3. It is now possible to fairly accurately predict a passive viewer's response to a static
moderate to large scale landscape based on the composition of the scene. The middle
ground is established as the key visual line between foreground details and
background form (Forest Service, Vol. I, p. 16, 1972). In particular, water edge,
topographic relief, physical enclosure, degree of naturalness and other measurable
dimensions are strongly correlated to viewer response (Zube, 1974; Shafer, 1969).
4. Quantification of scenic quality for use in environmental decision making would be
possible only if all interested user groups share the same attitudes and values, and the
decision process includes extensive participant interaction (Landscapes Limited,
1974).
I have been able to locate no extensive application of these approaches to barrier
islands. This is due to the lack of recent governmental attention. The N.A.R. study classified
them as exhibiting a low scenic potential because the rating factors used-internal contrast,
spatial variety, and sense of enclosure-as in other systems, are based on geomorphic features,
and the shallow relief and linear form of barrier islands and beaches frustrate the application
of such existing techniques.
The difficulty is threefold: The fine grained features of barrier islands are often not
clearly exhibited in the secondary data sources (maps, air photos) typically used in such
regional studies (Felleman, 1976). Terrestrial analysis is slow and expensive. The usual
substitution of scenery for aesthetics does not account for the strong multisensory inputs
available on barrier islands. In addition, barrier islands are experienced by active pedestrian
recreationists, not auto or tour based viewers as in many parks and forests. Leonard (1972, p.
107) expresses the experience as follows:
"Now the beach was all my own, utterly virgin, not a print on it except the delicate
embroidery made by the feet of little shore birds. Nothing looked different from the day
before, but in my solitude, the beach felt different. The air smelled pure. The shore on which
the waves were breaking seemed as deserted as in the far-off time before even the first Indians
settled along the Atlantic coast. I looked around for signs of man; there were none. No planes
marred the sky, no boats the ocean. The emptiness of the beach made me feel all the more
intimately tied to it. Everything I observed seemed focused with an extra intensity, as if I
were looking through a microscope and a telescope at the same time."
Rather than to passively observe, as we might at Old Faithful, Niagara Falls, or on the
Maine or Oregon coasts, a barrier island compels us to interact with the fine grained
environment. The noises, smells, winds, and spray create a total experience in which all the
senses are orchestrated. The lack of a distinct middle ground in the visual continuum
exaggerates the immediate local surroundings (hot sands and cold foam on our bare feet)
while the ocean-sky horizon creates a humble feeling of finiteness.
The challenge is to develop efficient local-scale methods for utilizing available visual
analysis techniques, and to supplement these analyses with other sensory data.

Recreation
The previous discussion has dealt mainly with aesthetic concerns of a hypothetical single
person in a totally natural setting. Such a model is, of course, not representative of our
present and future experiences on barrier islands. Two modifications are necessary to fully
comprehend the recreational problem. First, the vast majority of outdoor recreation is done in
groups. Thus, people are not only interacting with the environment but with each other.

Felleman

Second, the human presence necessarily modifies the experience of one's physical environ-
ment.
Barrier islands can potentially host a variety of recreational activities. In light of the
policy of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to:
"... preserve, protect, develop and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources...",
we can group these activities by their level of development intensity. Intensive activities
generated by or near residential and resort areas involve long term structures which must be
carefully located and designed, such as tennis courts and clubhouses. Extensive activities, on
the other hand, are uniquely suited to barrier islands. Camping, swimming and outdoor
education require relatively few structures with the latter utilizing many elements of the
dynamic resource base (Conservation Foundation, 1975). The National Seashores afford many
opportunities for such appropriate low-intensity uses.
Finally, the recreational opportunity for which barrier islands have no peer is the
oceanfront "wilderness" experience. The environmental and psychological need for preserving
remote natural settings was recognized early in this century with the creation of the National
Parks. The Wilderness Act of 1964 has clarified both the experiential concept and the
leadership role of the Federal Government in providing such opportunities to our citizens:
"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the
landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are
untravelled by man; where man himself is a visitor who does not remain .. . which (1)
generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of
man's work substantially unnoticeable, (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a
primitive and unconfined type of recreation . ."
(Wilderness Act of 1964)

There are substantial problems involved in managing recreation in sensitive, dynamic
environments. These interrelated issues can be categorized as subsets of "carrying capacity"-
"the ability of something to absorb outside influence and still retain its essence" (Penfold,
1972). The issue subsets include:
-Physical Carrying Capacity-for example, effects of trail erosion;
-Ecological Carrying Capacity-the condition of food chains, habitats, and species
behavior;
-Psychological Carrying Capacity-the effect of visitors on the capacity of the
wilderness to yield satisfying experience to others.
Much research has been undertaken in each of these areas. Briefly summarizing, physical
carrying capacity, although quite complex, can be systematically studied and lends itself to
quantification and management practices (Nerikar, et al., 1976; Ketchledge and Leonard,
1970). Ecological carrying capacity analyses are in relatively primitive states due to the
difficulties in establishing base level information and constructing dynamic models. This
situation may be further complicated in barrier islands where the natural terrain is in a
constant state of flux.
Environmentally based development plans represent major advances but are open to
criticism on the basis of their static nature (Ris, 1974). Psychological carrying capacities
involve all the senses as well as the cultural and educational background of the users.
Significant progress is being made in establishing visual, noise, and user-density criteria for
various quality levels of wilderness experience (Wagar, 1974; Stankey and Lime, 1973).
If carrying capacity,; in all its dimensions, is to become an operational approach to
management, processes will be needed to control the amount (and possibly type) of users. The
erosion of quality in our National Parks is directly a function of overuse. Approaches
currently being tested include: first come-first served, permits, lotteries, and "risk zoning"
(Echelberger, et al., 1974; Greist, 1975).

Aesthetic and Recreational Factors in Barrier Island Planning

Conclusions
Aesthetic and recreational considerations can play a central role in the wise management
of our nation's barrier islands. Existing methods of analysis must be adapted to the unique
features of these fragile systems. Experience in resource management has demonstrated the
need for a comprehensive approach. This will entail both the integration of various analytical
inputs as well as the administrative mechanisms necessary to manage the entire set of islands
as a whole.

References
Bureau of Land Management, U.S.D.I. 1975. Visual Resource Management, Manual Sections
6300, 6310, 6320, November.
Kenneth H. Craik. 1970. "Environmental Psychology." In New Directions in Psychology IV,
New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
H.E. Echelberger, D. Deiss, and D.A. Morrison. 1974. "Overuse of Unique Recreational
Areas." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 29(4), July-August, pp. 173-176.
J. Felleman. 1976. "Coastal Landforms and Scenic Analysis: A Review of the Literature, With
a Preliminary Examination of New York's Shoreline." Syracuse, School of Landscape
Architecture, SUNY-ESF, Sea Grant Project, Working Paper No. 4.
Forest Service, USDA. 1972. Forest Landscape Management. Forest Service, Northern
Region, Vol. I.
Forest Service, USDA. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management, The Visual Manage-
ment System. Washington, USGPO, Vol. 2, Ch. 1.
Forest Service, USDA. 1975. VIEWIT: Computation of seen areas, slope and aspect of Land
Use Planning. Berkeley, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
D.A. Greist. 1975. "Risk Zoning-A Recreation Area Management System and Method of
Measuring Carrying Capacity." Journal of Forestry, 73(11), pp. 711-714.
S. Haskett. 1975. "Evaluating Visual Quality of the Coastline: Some Significant Issues."
Syracuse, School of Landscape Architecture, SUNY-ESF, Sea Grant Project, Working
Paper No. 2, p. 2.
E.H. Ketchledge and R.E. Leonard. 1970. "The Impact of Man on the Adirondak High
Country." NY Conservationist, pp. 14-18.
Landscapes Limited. 1974. PERMITS Methodology-Phase II. Portland, Bonneville Power
Administration.
Jonathan Norton Leonard. 1972. Atlantic Beaches. Time-Life, The American Wilderness
Series.
RB. Litton. 1971. Scenic Analysis of the Lake Tahoe Region. South Lake Tahoe, Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency and US Forest Service.
R.B. Litton, R.J. Tetlow, J. Sorensen, and R. Beatty. 1974. Water and Landscape-An
Aesthetic Overview of the Role of Water in the Landscape. Port Washington, NY, Water
Information Center, Inc.
Roy Mann Associates, Inc. 1975. Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone. Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, p. 13.
The Nature Conservancy. 1975. The Preservation of Natural Diversity: A Survey and
Recommendations. Prepared for US Department of the Interior, Washington.
V.N. Nerikar, et al. 1976. "Gauging Florida's Carrying Capacities." Landscape Architecture,
March, pp. 133-137.

Felleman
T.J. Nieman and R.C. Viohl. In Press. The Description, Classification, and Assessment of
Visual Landscape Quality. Monticello, Ill., Council of Planning Librarians, Exchange
Bibliography.
Joseph W. Penfold, et al. 1972. National Parks for the Future. Washington, Conservation
Foundation, p. 35.
Research Planning and Design Associates, Inc. 1967. North Atlantic Regional Water Resource
Study, Visual and CulturalEnvironment.. Amherst, Mass.
I-C. Ris. 1974. A Development-Management Model for Barrier Islands. Syracuse, School of
Landscape Architecture, SUNY-ESF, Master's Thesis.
E.L. Shafer, Jr., J.F. Hamilton, Jr., and E.A. Schmidt. 1969. "Natural Landscape Preferences:
A Predictive Model." Journalof Leisure Research, 1(1), pp. 1-19.
G.H. Stankey and D. Lime. 1973. Recreational Carrying Capacity: An Annotated Bibliog-
raphy. Ogden, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-3.
R. Viohl, Jr. 1975. "Landscape Evaluation: A Review of Current Techniques and
Methodologies." Syracuse, School of Landscape Architecture, SUNY-ESF, Sea Grant
Project, Working Paper No. 3.
J. Alan Wagar. 1964. The Carrying Capacity Iof Wild Lands for Recreation. Society of
American Foresters, Forest Science Monograph No. 7, p. 3.
J. Alan Wagar. 1974. "Recreational Carrying Capacity Reconsidered." Journal of Forestry,
72(5), May, pp. 274-278.
US Environrnental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. 1973. Aesthetics
in Environmental Planning. Washington, USGPO, Chap. 1.
US Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. Outdoor Recreation for
America, Washington, USGPO.
The Vineyard Open Land Foundation. 1973. Looking at the Vineyard: A Visual Study for a
Changing Island. West Tinsbury, Mass.
E.H. Zube, E.G. Pitt, and T.W. Anderson. 1974. Perception and Measurement of Scenic
Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Pub. No. R74-1. Amherst, Mass.,
Institute for Man and His Environment.

Reprinted from Council of Planning Librarians, Exchange Bibliography #1064. Published by Council of
Planning Librarians, PO Box 229, Monticello, IL 61856. June 1976.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
THE DESCRIPTION, CLASSIFICATION, AND ASSESSMENT
OF VISUAL LANDSCAPE QUALITY
Thomas J. Nieman
Richard C Viohl
State University of New York
College of Environmental Science and Forestry
School of Landscape Architecture
Syracuse, New York 13210

With the relatively recent upsurge in research related to man-environment relations
numerous journals, bibliographies, research papers, etc. have been published. These represent a
range of attempts to describe, classify and assess various aspects of the natural and man-made
environment, singularly and as they interface in the "real world." While the study of man and
his concomitant environment is often confusing and difficult to understand, much less to
effectively deal with, the entrance of multiple disciplines, designers on the one hand and social
scientists on the other, has served to spawn an enormous potential for interdisciplinary
research and information exchange.
A related, but distinct, characteristic of man-environment relations is the growing
importance of aesthetics and visual quality. The entire question of assessing and experiencing
intrinsic visual quality, while largely neglected by most environmental researchers, is now
viewed as an integral part of environmental research. As a result, the consideration of visual
quality as an important element in the planning process is rapidly gaining support among
planning agencies, consulting firms, and research institutions. While there has been
considerable documentation of efforts to appreciate, in a literary sense, the visual aspects of
the environment, visual quality has not been a major consideration in policy planning.
Nonetheless, under the term "aesthetics," federal and local guidelines refer to visual quality as
a required consideration on an equal basis with economic, social and environmental issues.
The problem lies in that understanding visual quality, much less objectively quantifying it, is
at a much lower level of sophistication than the other issues. As a result, policy planning is, at
best, inconsistent and leads to conflicts that further frustrate attempts to deal with visual
quality as a tangible element in the planning process.
This bibliography is intended to give a comprehensive list of materials that represent the
present "state-of-the-art" of the description, classification, and assessment of visual quality. In
an attempt to be systematic and to give the reader a clue to what references represent which
area of visual quality concern, the bibliography has been divided into three components and
key words or descriptors have been utilized to further clarify the component. There may be
disagreement as to the proper placement of a reference in a component, and, a reference may
belong in more than one component. However, the intent is to give the reader a place to begin
the pursuit of research in one of three areas of visual quality:
1. Theoretical and Research Approaches to Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Human
Behavior.
2. Landscape Classification: Description, Discussion and Methodology.
3. Assessment of Landscape Preference: Methodologies, Factors and Considerations.

Nieman and Viohl

Theoretical and Research Approaches to
Aesthetics, Visual Quality, and Human Behavior
Aesthetic Appraisal Environmental Disposition
Aesthetic Appreciation Environmental Intangibles
Aesthetic Experiences Environmental Perception
Aesthetic Objectivity Evaluation
Ambiguity External Benefits
Assessment Human Response
Attitude Measuring Instruments Landscape Quality
Behavior Non-price Variables
Behavior Setting Personality Differences (Role of)
Cognition Preferences
Complexity Public Attitudes
Computers Quality (Definition of)
Content Analysis Quantitative Measurement
Creating Landscape Quality Response
Differential Response Social Amenities
Economic Trade-offs Stimulus
Environmental Appraisal Urban Complexity
Environmental Appreciation Values
Environmental Awareness Visual Resource

Acking, Carl-Axel and Rikard Kullar. "Presentation and Judgement of Planned Environment
and the Hypothesis of Arousal." In Environmental Design Research. Vol. 2, W.F.E.
Preiser, ed. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1973, pp. 72-83.
Acking, Carl-Axel and Gannar Jarle Sorte. "How Do We Verbalize What We See?" In,
Landscape Architecture. October 1973, pp. 470-475.
Appleyard, Donald, Kevin Lynch and J. Myer. The View from the Road. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1965.
Beckett, P.H.T. "The Interaction Between Knowledge and Aesthetic Appreciation." In
Landscape Research News, Vol. 1, No. 8. Landscape Research Group, University of
Manchester, Summer 1974, pp. 5-7 (British).
Buttimer, Sister Annette. Values in Geography. Resource Paper #24. Washington, D.C.:
Association of American Geographers, 1974.
Child, Irvin. "Personal Preferences as an Expression of Aesthetic Sensitivity." In Journal of
Personality, Vol. 30, No. 4. December 1962, pp. 496-512.
_ _ _ _ . "Esthetics." In Handbook of Social Psychology 3. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds.
Vol. 3, Chapt. 28. Addison-Wesley, 1969, pp. 853-916.
Clark, Roger N., John C. Hendee and Frederick L. Campbell. "Values, Behavior, and Conflict
in Modern Camping Culture." In Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, Summer
1971, pp. 142-159.
Coomber, Nicholas H. and Asit K. Biswas. Evaluation of Environmental Intangibles.
Bronxville, New York: Genera Press, 1973.
Craik, Kenneth H. "The Comprehension of the Everyday Environment." In American
Institute of Planners Journal, January 1968.
". "Human Responsiveness to Landscape: An Environmental Psychological Perspec-
tive." In Response to Environment. Coates and Moffett, eds. Student Publication of the
School of Design. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University, Vol. 18.
1969, pp. 169-193.

Bibliography
"The Environmental Dispositions of Environmental Decision-Makers." In The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 389. May 1970,
pp. 87-94.
. "The Assessment of Places." In Advances in Psychological Assessment. P.
McReynolds, ed. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, Vol. II. 1971, pp. 40-63.
David, Elizabeth L. "Lakeshore Property Values: A Guide to Public Investment in
Recreation." In Water Resources Research, Vol. 4, No. 4. August 1968, pp. 697-707.
"Effects of Nonprice Variables Upon Participation in Water-Oriented Outdoor
Recreation: Comment." In American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 51, No.
4. November 1969, pp. 942-945.
Dearinger, John A. Measuring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I.- Application of
the Uniqueness Concept. Kentucky Water Resources Institutes, Lexington, Kentucky.
Distributed by NTIS, Springfield, Virginia. June 1971.
DeLact, Christian. "The Relationship of Government and the Public in the Provision of Social
Amenities." In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Congress, International Federation of
Landscape Architecture, Montreal. W. Douglas Harper, ed. June 1968, pp. 107-119.
Diffy, T.J. "Evaluation and Aesthetic Appraisals." In British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 7,
No. 4. pp. 358-373.
Ditwiler, C. Dirck. "Environmental Perceptions and Policy Misconceptions." In American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 55, No. 3. August 1973, pp. 477-483.
Ferris, Kimball H. and Julius Gy Fabos. The Utility of Computers in Landscape Planning: The
Selection and Application of a Computer Mapping and Assessment System for the
Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model (MIVETLAND). Bulletin No. 617, December
1974. (Massachusetts Agricultural Exp. Sta., University of Massachusetts).
Gratzer, Miklos S. and Robert D. McDowell. Adaptation of an Eye Movement Recorder to
Aesthetic Environmental Mensuration. Storrs Agriculture Exp. Sta., University of
Connecticut, Research Report No. 36, 1971.
Gump, Paul V. "The Behavior Setting: A Promising Unit in Environmental Designers." In
Landscape Architecture. January 1971, pp. 130-133.
"Milieu, Environment and Behavior." In Design and Environment, Vol. 2, No. 4.
Winter 1971, pp. 49-50 and 60.
Harper, David B. and John D. Warbach, eds. Proceedings of Conference/Workshop on Visual
Quality and the Coastal Zone. Syracuse, New York, May 29-30, 1975. Albany: New
York Sea Grant Institute. (In preparation.)
Haskett, Sarah. Evaluating Visual Quality of the Coastline: Some Significant Issues. Sea Grant
Project Working Paper No. 2. School of Landscape Architecture, SUNY College of
Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York, 1975.
Heberlein, Thomas A. "Social Psychological Assumptions of User Attitude Surveys: The Case
of the Wildernism Scale." In Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 5, No. 3. Summer 1973,
pp. 18-33.
Hess, E.H. "Attitude and Pupil Size." In Scientific American, Vol. 212, No. 4. 1965, pp.
46-54.
Hornbeck, Peter L. (Project Director). Highway Esthetics: Functional Criteria for Planning
and Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Landscape Architecture Research Office,
Graduate School of Design, Harvard University. June 1968. Available through NTIS PB
180 022.
Ittelson, William H. "Perception of the Large-Scale Environment." In Transactions New York
Academy of Sciences, Series II, Vol. 32, No. 7. November 1970, pp. 807-815.

Nieman and Viohl
Jensen, Jerome W. and Lorelei J. Fritz. State Environmental Plan.' Prototype Program for the
Visual Environment. School of Landscape Architecture, SUNY College of Environ-
mental Science and Forestry, 1972.
Johnson, Hugh A. and Judith M. Huff. Toward Measuring the Intangible Values of Natural
Beauty. Washington, DC: U.S.D.A., Economic Research Service, National Resource
Economics Division, August 1966. (Mimeograph).
Kaplan, Stephen. "The Challenge of Environmental Psychology: A Proposal for a New
Functionalism." American Psychologist. February 1972, pp. 140-143.
"Cognitive Maps, Human Needs and the Designed Environment." In Environmental
Design Research. Vol. 1. W.F.E. Preiser, ed. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: Dowden,
Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc. 1973, pp. 275-283.
"Cognitive Maps in Perception and Thought." In Cognitive Mapping: Images of
Spatial Environments. Downs and Stea, eds. Chicago, Illinois.
Kates, Robert W. "Stimulus and Symbol: The View from the Bridge." In Journal of Social
Issues, Vol. 22, No. 4. 1966, pp. 21-28.
"The Pursuit of Beauty in the Environment." In Landscape, Vol. 16, No. 2. Winter
1966-67, pp. 21-25.
Kates, Robert and J.F. Wohlwill. "Man's Response to the Physical Environment." In Journal
of SocialIssues, Vol. 22, No. 4. 1966, pp. 15-20.
Kooyoomjian, K. Jack and Nicholas L. Clesceri. "Perception of Water Quality by Select
Respondent Groupings in Inland Water-Based Recreational Environments." In Water
Resources Bulletin, Vol. 10, No. 4. August 1974, pp. 728-744.
Leff, Herbert L., Lawrence R. Gordon and James G. Ferguson. "Cognitive Set and
Environmental Awareness." In Environment and Behavior, Vol. 6, No. 4. December
1974, pp. 395-447.
Lowenthal, David. "Assumptions Behind the Public Attitudes." In Environmental Quality in a
Growing Economy. Henry Jarrett, ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1966, pp.
128-137.
. "Recreation Habits and Values: Implications for Landscape Quality." In Proceed-
ings of the 11th Biennial Congress, International Federation of Landscape Architecture,
Montreal. W. Douglas Harper, ed. June 1968, pp. 221-230.
Lowenthal, David, et al. Publications in Environmental Perception. New York, New York:
American Geographical Society, Nos. 1-8. 1972.
Lowenthal, D. and M. Riel. "The Nature of Perceived and Imagined Environments." In
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 4. 1973, pp. 189-207.
Maas, Ira F.M. "Approaches to Maintaining and Creating Landscape Qualities." In Proceedings
of the 11th Biennial Congress, International Federation of Landscape Architecture,
Montreal. W. Douglas Harper, ed. June 1968, pp. 239-243.
Mackworth, Norman H. and Anthony J. Morandi. "The Gaze Selects Informative Details
Within Pictures." In Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 2, No. 11. 1967, pp. 547-552.
Meinig, D.W. "Environmental Appreciation: Localities as a Humane Art." In The Western
Humanities Review, Vol. 25, No. 1. Winter 1971, pp. 1-11.
Melhorn, W.N. Photogrammetric Analysis of Urban and Rural Environments. Washington, DC:
Highway Research Board, 1973. (HRB Record 452).
Minshall, C.W., N. Dee and J.M. Griffin. "Development of the Arizona Environmental
Economic Trade-off Model." In American Industrial Development Council Journal, Vol.
9, No. 2. April 1974.

Bibliography
Mitchell, James P. "A Study of Aesthetic Preferences." Masters Thesis, University of
Wyoming. December 1974. (Available NTIS).
Morawski, Stefan. "On the Objectivity of Aesthetic Judgement." In British Journal of
Aesthetics, Vol. 6, No. 4. October 1966, pp. 315-327.
National Park Service and New England River Basins Commission. Shoreline Appearance and
Design: A PlanningHandbook. Prepared by Roy Mann Assoc., Inc. April 1975.
Newby, Floyd. "Understanding the Visual Resource." Proceedings of the Forest Recreation
Symposium. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania: U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1971, pp. 68-72.
Northrop, F.S.C. "Man's Relation to the Earth in its Bearing on His Aesthetic, Ethical, and
Legal Values." In Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. Thomas, et al., eds.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 1052-1067.
Ostrander, Edward R. The Environmental Analyst's Tool Kit: Options and Caution.
Department of Design and Environmental Analysis, SUNY College of Human Ecology,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Spring 1971. (Draft Mimeograph).
Penning-Rowsell, E.C. and D.I. Hardy. "Landscape Evaluation and Planning Policy: A
Comparative Survey in the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Beauty." In Regional
Studies, Vol. 7. 1973, pp. 153-160.
Pennsylvania State University. College of Agriculture Extension Service. Aesthetics Related to
Selected Forest Practices. By T.D. Rader and L.S. Hamilton, Special Circular 183,
University Park, Pennsylvania.
Peterson, George L. "Measuring Visual Preferences of Residential Neighborhoods." In
Ekistics. Vol. 140. 1967, pp. 167-173.
Polakowski, Kenneth J. An Aesthetic Basis for Visual Resource Analysis. Seminar paper,
Impact Assessment in Water Resources Planning Seminar, sponsored by US Corps of
Army Engineers Institute, held at School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan; June 1973.
Rabinowitz, Carla B. and Robert E. Coughlin. Analysis of Landscape Characteristics Relevant
to Preference. Regional Science Research Institute. Discussion Paper Series No. 38.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1970.
�. Some Experiments in Quantitative Measurement of Landscape Quality. Regional
Science Research Institute, Discussion Paper Series No. 43. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
March 1973.
Rader, Terry D. and Lawrence S. Hamilton. Aesthetics Related to Selected Forest Practices.
Special Circular 183. University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn. State University, College of
Agriculture Ext. Service.
Randall, Alan, Berry Ives and Clyde Eastman. "Bidding Games for Valuation of Aesthetic
Environmental Improvements." In Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-
ment, Vol. 1, No. 2. August 1974, pp. 132-149.
Rapoport, Amos and Robert: E. Kantor. "Complexity and Ambiguity in Environmental
Design." In AIP Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4. July 1967, pp. 210-220.
_ and Ron Hawkes. "The Perception of Urban Complexity." In AIP Journal, Vol. 36,
No. 2. March 1970, pp. 106-111.
Redding, Martin J. Aesthetics in Environmental Planning. Washington, DC: Office of Research
and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency. November 1973.
Rokeach, Milton. "The Role of Values in Public Opinion Research." In Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4. Winter 1968-69, pp. 554-559.
Saarinen, Thomas A. Perception of Environment, Resource Paper No. 5. Washington, DC:
Association of American Geographers. 1969.

Nieman and Viohl
Sanoff, Henry. "Visual Attributes of the Physical Environment." In Response to Environ-
ment. Coates and Moffett, eds. Student Publication of the School of Design. Raleigh,
North Carolina: North Carolina State University, Vol. 18. 1969, pp. 37-60.
Sawyer, R.N. and T.E. Harbaugh. "A Methodology for the Construction of Attitude
Measuring Instruments." In Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 3. May-June 1970,
pp. 401-407.
Sewell, W.R. Derrick and Brian R. Little. "Specialists, Laymen and the Process of
Environmental Appraisal." In Regional Studies, Vol. 6. 1972. (British).
Shafer, Elwood L., Jr. "Perception of Natural Environments." In Environment and Behavior,
Vol. 1, No. 1. June 1969, pp. 71-82.
Shechter, M. and M. Barnea. "The Expenditures in Nature and Landscape Conservation: The
Case of Israel." In Journal ofEnvironmental Management, Vol. 1. 1973, pp. 393-404.
Sinden, J.A. "A Utility Approach to the Valuation of Recreational and Aesthetic
Experiences." In American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 56, No. 1. February
1974, pp. 61-72.
Singh, Raghu N. and Kenneth P. Wilkinson. "On the Measurement of Environmental Impacts
of Public Projects from a Sociological Perspective." In Water Resources Bulletin, Vol.
10, No. 3. June 1974, pp. 415-425.
Sonnefeld, Joseph. "Variable Values in Space and Landscape: An inquiry into the Nature of
Environmental Necessity." In Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 22, No. 4. 1966, pp. 71-82.
� "Equivalence and Distortion of the Perceptual Environment." In Environment and
Behavior, Vol. 1, No. 1. June 1969, pp. 83-99.
Staff. "The Cognitive Dissonance Model as a Predictor of Customer Satisfaction Among
Camper Owners." (plus a rejoinder by authors). In Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 6,
No. 2. Spring 1972, pp. 163-167.
Stankey, George H. "The Use of Content Analysis in Resource Decision Making." In Journal
of Forestry, Vol. 70, No. 3. March 1972, pp. 148-151.
. "A Strategy for the Definition and Management of Wilderness Quality." Chapter 3
in Natural Environments. John V. Krutilla, ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
1972, pp. 88-114.
Stea, David. "Environmental Perception and Cognition: Toward a Model for 'Mental Maps'."
In Response to Environment. Gary Coates and Kenneth Moffett, eds. Raleigh, North
Carolina: Student Publication of the School of Design, North Carolina State University,
Vol. 18. 1969, pp. 63-75.
Swanson, Diane. Public Hearings and Attitude-Perception Studies: An Evaluation of Their
Role in the Planning Process, paper 70-1. Ottawa, Canada: Policy and Planning Branch,
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. March 17, 1969.

Tombaugh, Larry W. "External Benefits of Natural Environments." Proceedings of the Forest
Recreation Symposium. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania: U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1971, pp.
73-77.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. "Ambiguity in Attitudes Toward Environment." In Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 63, No. 4. December 1973, pp. 411-423.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Aesthetics in Environmental Planning. Report prepared
by Martin J. Redding, Project Director, Environmental Research Center, Washington,
DC (EPA-600/5-73-009), November 1973.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. An
Introduction to CODINVOL VE: A System for Analyzing, Storing, and Retrieving

Bibliography

Public Input to Response Decisions, by R.N. Clark, G.H. Stankey, and J.C. Hendee,
Research note PNW-223, Seattle, Washington. April ?
. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. VIEWIT: Computation of
Seen Areas, Slope, and Aspect for Land Use Planning, by M.R. Travis, G.H. Eisner, W.D.
Iverson, and C.G. Johnson, General Technical Report PSW-11, Berkeley, California.
1975.
Valentine, The Experimental Psychology of Beauty. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1962.
Vitz, Paul C. "Preference for Different Amounts of Visual Complexity." In Behavioral
Science, Vol. 11. 1966, pp. 105-114.
Weddle, A.E. "The Region as a Unit for Planning an Environment for Leisure Time." In
Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Congress. International Federation of Landscape
Architecture, Montreal. W. Douglas Harper, ed. June 1968, pp. 75-79.
Wenger, Wiley D. "Pupillometrics and Aesthetics." In Proceedings: Recreation Researchers'
Conference. Syracuse, New York. May 3-4, 1967.
Westland, G. "The Psychologist's Search for Scientific Objectivity in Aesthetics." In British
Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 7, No. 4. October 1967, pp. 350-357.
White, Gilbert. "Formation and Role of Public Attitudes." In Environmental Quality in a
Growing Economy. Henry Jarett, ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1966, pp.
105-127.
Winkel, Gary H., Roger Malek and Philip Theil. "The Role of Personality Differences in
Judgements of Roadside Quality." In Environment and Behavior. " December 1969, pp.
199-223.
Wohlwill, Joachim F. "The Physical Environment: A Problem for a Psychology of
Stimulation." In Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 22, No. 4. 1966, pp. 29-38.
"Amount of Stimulus Exploration and Preferences as Differential Functions of
Stimulus Complexity." In Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 4, No. 5. 1968, pp.
307-312.
"The Emerging Discipline of Environment Psychology." In A merican Psychologist,
Vol. 25. 1970, pp. 303-312.
Factors in the Differential Response to the Natural and the Man-Made Environ-
ment. Paper presented at: Symposium of Affective Response to the Outdoor
Environment, American Psychological Association, Montreal. August 1973. (Mimeo-
graph).
_ The Place of Aesthetics in Studies of the Environment. Paper prepared for the
Symposium on Experimental Aesthetics and Psychology of the Environment, Inter-
national Congress of Applied Psychology, Montreal. July 1974. (Mimeograph).
Yeomans, William C. "Leisure Potential of the Mountain-Coastal Landscape." Proceedings of
the 11th Biennial Congress, International Federation of Landscape -Architecture,
Montreal. W. Douglas Harper, ed. June 1968, pp. 199-206.

Nieman and Viohl

Landscape Classification:
Description, Discussion and Methodology
Aesthetic Dimensions Measurement of Environmental Quality
Assessment of Scenery Measuring Scenic Beauty
Classification of Forest Land Numbers on Qualities
Elements of Visual Analysis Quantitative Inventory, Analysis
Environmental Quality Ranking Systems Rate and Rank Landscapes
Evaluation Scenery Classification System
Evaluation of Natural Components Techniques for Inventorying
Land Classification

Brancher, D.M. "Critique of K.D. Fines: Landscape Evaluation. A Research Project in East
Sussex." In Regional Studies, Vol. 3. 1969, pp. 91-92.
Burke, Hubert, et al. "A Method for Classifying IScenery from a Roadway." In Park Practice
Guideline. Development 3/68. Washington, DC: National Recreation and Parks
Association, 1968, pp. 125-141.
Cook, Walter L. "An Evaluation of the Aesthetic Quality of Forest Trees." In Journal of
Leisure Research, Vol. 4. Fall 1972, pp. 293-302.
Cooke, R.U. and J.C. Doornkamp. "Landforms and Techniques of Scenic Evaluation."
Chapter 12 in Geomorphology in Environmental Management: An Introduction.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1974, pp. 308-325.
Craik, Kenneth H. The Landscape Adjective Check List. Institute of Personality Assessment
and Research, University of California, Los Angeles, California. 1969.
Crofts, R.S. and R.U. Cooke. Landscape Evaluation: A Comparison of Techniques. Occasional
Paper No. 25, Department of Geography, University College London, England, October
1974.
Elsner, Gary H. Visual Impact Assessment of Alternative Land Use-A Computer Method to
Assist in Planning. Paper submitted for presentation at Confer-In 74. 1974.
Fabos, Julius Gy. "An Analysis of Environmental Quality Ranking Systems." Proceedings of
the Forest Recreation Symposium. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania: U.S.D.A. Forest
Service. 1971, pp. 40-55.
. "Putting Numbers on Qualities: The Rising Landscape Assessors." In Landscape
Architecture, Vol. 64, No. 3. April 1974, pp. 164-165.
, et al. Model for Landscape Resource Assessment, Part 1 of the Metropolitan
Landscape Planning Model, (METLAND) Research Bulletin #602. Amherst, Massachu-
setts: University of Massachusetts, College of Food and Natural Resources Agricultural
Experiment Station, June 1973.
Fines, K.D. "Landscape Evaluation: A Research Project in East Sussex." InRegional Studies,
(British), Vol. 2, No. 1. 1968, pp. 41-54.
"Further Discussion of the Australian Land Research Approach." From: U.N.E.S.C.O.,
Methodology of Integrated Surveys. 1967, pp. 51-61.
Hamill, Louis, "Classification of Forest Land for Recreation Potential and Scenery." In The
Forestry Chronicle, Vol. 47, No. 3. 1970, pp. 149-153.
Hart, William and William J. Graham. "How to Rate and Rank Landscape." In Landscape
Architecture. January 1967, pp. 121-122.
Hebblethwaite, R.L. "Landscape Assessment and Classification Techniques in Land Use and
Landscape Planning." Derek Lovejoy, ed. 1973.

Bibliography

Hendrix, W.G. "The Visual Land Use Compatibility Component of the Model for Land-
scape Resource Assessment." Part of the Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model
(METLAND). Thesis, University of Massachusetts, August 1973.
Jackson, Reiner. Shoreline Recreation Planning: A Systems View. Occasional Paper #7.
Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. July 1973.
Jacobs, Peter. "The Landscape Image: Current Approaches to the Visual Analysis of the
Landscape." In Town Planning Review, Vol. 46, No. 2. April 1975, pp. 127-150.
Kiemstedt, Dr. Hans. "The Evaluation of the Natural Components of the Landscape for
Leisure." In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Congress, International Federation of
Landscape Architecture, Montreal. E. Douglas Harper, ed. June 1968, pp. 121-129.
Leopold Luna B. "Landscape Aesthetics: How to Quantify the Scenics of a River Valley." In
Natural History, Vol. 78, No. 8. October 1969, pp. 37-44.
and Maura O'Brien Marchand. "On the Quantitative Inventory of the Riverscape." In
Water Resources Research, Vol. 4, No. 4. August 1968, pp. 709-717.
Linton, D.L. "The Assessment of Scenery as a Natural Resource." In Scottish Geographical
Journal, Vol. 84. 1968, pp. 219-238.
Litton, R. Burton, Jr. "Aesthetic Dimensions of the Landscape." Chap. 8 in Natural Environ-
ments. John V. Krutilla, ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, pp. 262-291.
. "Visual Vulnerability of Forest Landscapes." In Outdoor Recreation Research. St.
Paul, Minnesota: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station, General
Technical Report NC-9, 1974, pp. 87-91. Also in Journal of Forestry, Vol. 72, No. 7.
July 1974, pp. 392-397.
and Robert H. Twiss. "The Forest Landscape: Some Elements of Visual Analysis."
In Proceedings of Society of American Foresters. Seattle, Washington. 1966, pp.
212-214.
Roy Mann Associates. Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone. Report prepared for Office of
Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts, July 1975.
Martel, Gary F. Environmental Assessment: A Comparison of Approaches and Methods. Paper
presented at the 53rd Annual Meeting, Virginia Academy of Science, Harrisonburg,
Virginia, May 6-9, 1975.
Michalson, Dr. E.L. Aesthetics of Wild and Scenic Rivers: A Methodological Approach. Water
Resources Research Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, October 1974.
Potter, Dale R. and J. Alan Wagar. Techniques for Inventorying Manmade Impacts in
Roadway Environments. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Paper PNW-121. 1971.
Research, Planning and Design Associates (Zube). Study of the Visual and Cultural Environ-
ment Vol. 1 and 2. Amherst, Massachusetts: US Army Corps of Engineers. 1970.
Rowe, J.S. "Why Classify Forest Lands?" In The Forestry Chronicle, Vol. 47, No. 3. June
1971, pp. 144-148.
Sargent, Frederic O. "A Scenery Classification System." In Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, Vol. 21, No. 1. January-February 1966, pp. 26-27.
_ Scenery Classification. Vermont Resources Research Center, Burlington Agriculture
Experiment Station, University of Vermont Report #18. 1967 (reprinted 1971).
Twiss, Robert H. and R. Burton Litton. "Resources in the Landscape." In Natural Resources
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1. 1966, pp. 76-81.
U.S.D.A. Cooperative Extension Service and the University of Massachusetts. An Inventory
and Interpretation: Selected Resources of the Island of Nantucket, Pub. 4. Ervin H.
Zube and Carl A. Carlozzi, eds.

Nieman and Viohl
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 1. Agriculture
Handbook Number 434. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, February
1973.
. National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2-Chapter 1: The Visual
Management System. Agriculture Handbook Number 462. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office, April 1974.
California Region. Mineral King Visual Analysis, by Christine G. Johnson. San
Francisco, California, July 1974.
. Northern Region. Quantitative Analysis of the Visual Resource. Landscape
Architecture Branch, Division of Recreation and Lands.
. Northern Region. Forest Landscape Management. Landscape Architecure Branch,
Division of Recreation and Lands, Vol. 1. February 1972.
. Northern Region. Recreation Opportunity Inventory and Evaluation. Recreation
and Lands, Division of Natural Resource, R-I 74 006. June 1974.
. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Forest Landscape
Description and Inventories: A Basis for Land Planning and Design. By R. Burton
Litton, Jr. Research Paper PSW-49. Berkeley, California, 1968.
. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Computing Visible Areas
from Proposed Recreation Developments... A Case Study. By Gary H. Elsner.
Research Note PSW-246. Berkeley, California, 1971.
.Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Landscape Control Points:
A Procedure for Predicting and Monitoring Visual Impacts. By R. Burton Litton, Jr.
Research Paper PSW-91. Berkeley, California, 1973.
. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. "Measuring Scenic Beauty:
The Scenic Beauty Estimation Method." By T.C. Daniel and R.S. Boster, Research
Paper, Tucson, Arizona. 1975. (REVIEW DRAFT).
US Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Assessment for Effective Water Quality
Management Planning. A report prepared by Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Colum-
bus, Ohio. April 1972.
US Geologic Survey. Quantitative Comparison of Some Aesthetic Factors Among Rivers.
Circular 620. By Luna B. Leopold. 1969.
Vedenin, Yu A. and N.N. Miroshmichenko. "Evaluation of the Natural Environment for
Recreation Purposes." In Ekisitcs, Vol. 31, No. 184. March 1971, pp. 223-226.
Walker, Donald L., Jr. A Handbook of Landscape Analysis Techniques. Report sponsored by
the Bureau of Community Planning, University of Illinois, Department of Landscape
Architecture. December 1966.
Waller, R.A. "Environmental Quality, Its Measurement and Control." In Regional Studies,
Vol. 4. 1970, pp. 177-191. (British).
Williams, Henry G., Jr. and William M. Belden. Appalachia Recreation and Cultural Resources
Study. Report prepared for Office of Planning Coordination, State of New York, by
State University College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse University,
Syracuse, New York. May 1969, pp. 89-105.
Zonnevald, Ir I.S. Resources Evaluation, Pragmatic Land Classification and Integrated Surveys
of the Natural Environments. Delft, Holland: ITC-UNESCO CENTRE. February 1968.
(Mimeograph).
Zube, Ervin H. and H.A. Dega. Wisconsin's Lake Superior Shoreline, Vol. 3. Madison,
Wisconsin: Wisconsin State Department of Resource Development. 1964.

Bibliography

Assessment of Landscape Preference:
Methodologies, Factors and Considerations
Aesthetic and Emotional Experience Measuring: Environmental Dispositions
Aesthetic Preference Measuring: Perception of Elements
Agreement Measuring: Scenic Resources
Appraising the Objectivity Objective Assessment
Assessing Preferences Predicting Qualitative and Quantitative
Environmental Preference: Identifying Values
Environmental Preference: Predictors of Quantifying Aesthetic Quality
Environmental Preference: Problems of Identifying Quantitative Evaluation
Evaluating Quality Rated Preference and Complexity
Intermode Agreement Rating Landscapes
Landscape Appraisal Sensation-Seeking
Landscape Preferences Viewer Reactions
Visual Quality Considerations

Arthur, Louise M. "Testing the Predictive Utility of Scenic Beauty Prediction Models."
Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Arizona, 1975. (Draft Copy).
Brush, Robert O. "Recent Developments in Landscape Assessment Research with Implications
for Managing Forest Land for Recreation." In Outdoor Recreation Research: Applying
the Results. St. Paul, Minnesota: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, North Central Experiment
Station, General Technical Report NC-9. 1974, pp. 83-86.
Burns, William T. and Deane D. Rundell. A Test of Visual Preferences in a Rural New England
Landscape. Terminal Project, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of
Massachusetts. May 1969.
Calvin, James S., John A. Dearinger and Mary Ellen Curtin. "An Attempt at Assessing
Preferences for Natural Landscapes." In Environment and Behavior, Vol. 4, No. 4.
December 1972, pp. 447-470.
Carls, E. Glenn. "The Effects of People and Man-Induced Conditions in Preferences for
Outdoor Recreation Landscapes." In Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 6, No. 2. Spring
1974, pp. 113-124.
Coughlin, Robert E. and Karen A. Goldstein. The Extent of Agreement Among Observers on
Environmental Attractiveness. Paper #37. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research
Institute. February 1970.
Cox, P. Thomas, Adrian L. Haught and Ervin H. Zube. "Visual Quality Considerations in
Regional Land Use Changes." In Growth and Change: A Journal of Regional
Development, Vol. 3, No. 2. April 1972, pp. 9-15.
Craik, Kenneth H. "Appraising the Objectivity of Landscape Dimensions." Chapter 9 in
Natural Environments: Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. John V. Krutilla,
ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1972, pp. 292-346.
"Psychological Factors in Landscape Appraisal." In Environment and Behavior,
Vol. 4, No. 3. September 1972, pp. 255-266.
Daniel, Terry C., Lawrence Wheeler, Ron S. Boster and Paul R. Best, Jr. "Quantitative
Evaluation of Landscapes: An Application of Signal Detection Analysis to Forest
Management Alternatives." In Man-Environment Systems, Vol. 3, No. 5. September
1973, pp. 330-344.
Feste, Jan and Alf-Ivan Oterholm. "Estimation of Imageability and Aesthetic Quality of
Natural Landscape." In Landscape Research News. University of Manchester, Landscape
Research Group. March 1974. (British).

Nieman and Viohl
Gauger, Stephen E. and J.B. Wyckoff. "Aesthetic Preference for Water Resource Projects: An
Application of Q Methodology." In Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 3. June 1973,
pp. 522-528.
Hancock, "H" K. "Recreation Preference: Its Relation to User Behavior." In Journal of
Forestry, Vol. 71, No. 6. June 1973, pp. 336-337.
Hecock, Richard D. "Recreation Behavior Patterns as Related to Site Characteristics of
Beaches." In Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 2, No. 4. 1970, pp. 237-250.
Hendee, John C. and Robert W. Harris. "Foresters' Perception of Wilderness-User Attitudes
and Preferences." In Journal of Forestry, Vol. 68, No. 12. December 1970, pp.
759-762.
Kaplan, Rachel. "Predictors of Environmental Preferences: Designers and 'Clients'." In
Environmental Design Research, Vol. 1. W.F.E. Preiser, ed. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania:
Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc. 1973, pp. 265-274.
Kaplan, Stephen, Rachel Kaplan and John S. Wendt. "Rated Preference and Complexity for
Natural and Urban Visual Material." In Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 12, No. 4.
1972, pp. 354-356.
and John S. Wendt. "Preference and the Visual Environment: Complexity and Some
Alternatives." In Environmental Design: Research and Practice, Proceedings of the
EDRA3/ar 8 Conference. William E. Mitchell, ed. Los Angeles: University of California.
1972, pp. 6-8-1 to 6-8-5.
Litton, R. Burton, Jr., R.J. Tetlow, J. Sorensen and R.A. Beatty. Water and Landscape. Port
Washington, New York: Water Information Center, Inc., 1974.
McKechnie, George E. "Measuring Environmental Dispositions with the Environmental
Response Inventory." In EDRA 2, Proceedings of the Second Annual Environmental
Design Research Association Conference. John Archea and Charles Eastman, eds.
Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University, Office Service Department. October 1970, pp.
320-326.
Markman, Robert. "Sensation-Seeking and Environmental Preference." In EDRA 2, Proceed-
ings of the Second Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference.
John Archea and Charles Eastman, eds. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University, Office
Service Department, October 1970. pp. 311-315.
Melillo, Samuel T. "Visual Preference of Landscape Features." Masters Thesis. Department of
Landscape Architecture, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. May 1970.
Morisawa, Marie. "Evaluating Riverscapes." In Environmental Geomorphology. Donald R.
Coates, ed. A Proceedings Volume of the First Annual Geomorphology Symposia Series,
State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, New York. August 1971,
pp. 91-106.
Neumann, Edward S. and George L. Peterson. "Evaluating Subjective Response to the
Recreation Environment: A Quantitative Analysis of Dissimilar Preference for the
Visual Characteristics of Beaches." A report prepared for the Urban and Regional
Planning Program, Illinois, Northwestern University, in Outdoor Recreation Oppor-
tunity: Needs and Desires, Technical Report #1, February 1970.
and George L, Peterson. "Perception and Use of Urban Beaches." In EDRA 2,
Proceedings of the Second Annual Environmental Design Research Association
Conference. John Archea and Charles Eastman, eds. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon
University, Office Service Department. October 1970, pp. 327-333.
Newby, Floyd LaVon. Perceptual Assessment of Forested Roadside Landscapes. Ph.D.
Dissertation. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1971.

Bibliography
O'Riordan, Timothy. "The Problems of Identifying Environmental Preferences." In Progress
in Geography, Vol. 3. Chris Board, Richard Chorley, Peter Haggeth and David Stoddart,
eds. London: Edward Arnold Press. 1971, pp. 194-208.
Peterson, George L. "A Model of Preference: Quantitative Analysis of the Visual Appearance
of Residential Neighborhoods." In Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 7, No. 1. 1967, pp.
19-31.
"Evaluating the Quality of the Wilderness Environment: Congruence Between
Perception and Aspiration." In Environment and Behavior, Vol. 6, No. 2. June 1974,
pp. 169-193.
and Edward S. Neumann. "Modeling and Predicting Human Response to the Visual
Recreation Environment." In Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1. 1969, pp. 219-237.
Shafer, Elwood L., Jr. and James Mietz. "Aesthetic and Emotional Experiences Rate High
with Northeast Wilderness Hikers." In Environment and Behavior, Vol. 1, No. 2.
December 1969, pp. 187-197.
, John F. Hamilton and Elizabeth A. Schmidt. "Natural Landscape Preferences: A
Predictive Model." In Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1, No. 1. Winter 1969, pp. 1-19.
and George H. Moeller. "Predicting Quantitative and Qualitative Values of
Recreation Participation." In Proceedings of the Forest Recreation Symposium. Upper
Darby, Pennsylvania: U.S.D.A.' Forest Service. 1971, pp. 5-22.
and Michael Tooby. "Landscape Preferences: An International Replication." In
Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 5, No. 3. Summer 1973, pp. 60-65.
Stevens, Edward R. Toward the Objective Assessment and Design of the Visual Environment:
A Comprehensive Perceptual Approach. Submitted for presentation at Confer-In 74.
1974.
US Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources. Toward a Technique for Quantifying
Aesthetic Quality of Water Resources. Perry J. Brown, ed. Logan, Utah: Utah State
University. October 1974.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Northeast Forest Experiment Station. It Seems Possible to Quantify
Scenic Beauty in Photographs. By E.L. Shafer, Jr. and J. Mietz, Research Paper NE-202,
Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. 1970.
Northeast Forest Experiment Station. Measuring Perception of Elements in
Outdoor Environments. By G.H. Moeller, R. MacLachlan and D.A. Morrison, Research
Paper NE-289, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. 1974.
Northeast Forest Experiment Station. A Comparison of Viewer Reactions to
Outdoor Scenes and Photographs of Those Scenes. By E.L. Shafer, Jr. and T.A.
Richards, Research Paper NE-302, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. 1974.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. "Scenic Beauty Assess-
ment: A Literature Review." By L.M. Arthur, T.C. Daniel and R.S. Boster. Station
Paper, Tucson, Arizona. 1974. (REVIEW DRAFT).
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. "Scenic Assessment: An
Overview." By L.M2 Arthur, T.C. Daniel and R.S. Boster. Research Paper, Tucson,
Arizona. September 1, 1975. (REVIEW DRAFT).
Viohl, Richard C., Jr. Landscape Evaluation: A Review of Current Techniques and
Methodologies. Sea Grant Project Working Paper No. 3. School of Landscape
Architecture, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New
York. 1975.
Wagar, Alan J. "Recreational and Esthetic Considerations." In Environmental Effects of
Forest Residues Management in the Pacific Northwest: A State of Knowledge

Nieman and Viohi

Compendium. Owen P. Cramer, ed. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report
PNW-24. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
1974.
Wenger, Wiley D., Jr. and Richard Videback. "Eye Pupillary Measurement of Aesthetic
Responses to Forest Scenes." In Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1, No. 2. Spring
1969, pp. 149-161.
Zube, Ervin H. "Rating Everyday Rural Landscapes in the Northern US." In Landscape
Architecture, Vol. 64, No. 2. July 1973, pp. 371-375.
"Cross-Disciplinary and Intermode Agreement on the Description and Evaluation of
Landscape Resources." In Environment and Behavior, Vol. 6, No. 1. March 1974, pp.
69-89.
. "Scenic Resources and the Landscape Continuum: Identification." Ph.D. Disserta-
tion, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts. 1974.
, David G. Pitt and Thomas W. Anderson. Perception and Measurement of Scenic
Resources in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Pub. #R-74-1. Amherst,
Massachusetts: Institute for Man and His Environment, January 1974. NB: Reviewed in
Man-Environment Systems, Vol. 4, No. 4. July 1974, pp. 245-246.
_ , R.O. Brush and J. Gy Fabos, eds. Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and
Resdurces. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1975.

Bibliographies
Bell, G. and P. MacGreevey. Behavior and Environment: A Bibliography of Social Activities in
Urban Space. Council of Planning Librarians, Exchange Bibliography #123, 1970.
Gerney, James. Landscape Amenity Assessment Bibliography. Council of Planning Librarians,
Exchange Bibliography #287, 1972.
_ . Esthetics and Jurisprudence: A Bibliographic Primer. Council of Planning
Librarians, Exchange Bibliography #408, May 1973.
Harrison, James D. The Perception and Cognition of the Environment. Council of Planning
Librarians, Exchange Bibliography #516, 1973.
Marsh, John. Scenery Evaluation and Landscape Perception. Council of Planning Librarians,
Exchange Bibliography #304, August 1972.
May, Hayden B. Improving Quality of Environment Through Environment-Behavior Studies:
An Annotated Bibliography. Council of Planning Librarians, Exchange Bibliography
#526, 1973.
Murtha, P.A. and M. Greco. Appraisal of Forest Aesthetic Values: An Annotated
Bibliography. Forest Management Institute Information Report FMR-X-79, Canadian
Forestry Service, Ottawa, Canada, June 1975.
Ottar, Tom. Kenneth Craik's Environmental Psychology.- An Overview and Bibliography.
Council of Planning Librarians, Exchange Bibliography #677, November 1974.
Schauman, Sally. Landscape Visual Resources. Council of Planning Librarians, Exchange
Bibliography #938, July 30, 1975.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. "Measuring
Scenic Beauty: An Annotated Bibliography." By Ron S. Boster and Louise M. Arthur.
Station Paper, Tucson, Arizona, 1975. (REVIEW DRAFT).

APPENDIX: UPDATE OF RECENT RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

1. Test of 233 college students' preferences for 60 slides of Jamaica Bay, LI. (Viohl, 1977).
2. Comparison of above with 19 landscape dimensions measured for each scene (Viohl,
1977).
3. Test of 220 campers and residents of New York's coastal zone for 50 slides of state's
shoreline landscape types (report in preparation).
4. Landscape visibility determination techniques tested and compared in coastal study area:
PREVIEW computer landscape simulation model; map analysis; photography; and field
mapping (report in preparation).
5. Pilot survey of attitudes of 183 coastal users toward visual quality of coast and its
management (Doell, 1977).
6. Extended attitudes survey of 1000 coastal users [Nieman (forthcoming); more in
preparation].
7. Survey of attitudes of 100 coastal decision makers toward visual quality of coast and its
management (report in preparation).

References

Doell, G.A. 1977. An aid to the formulation of comprehensive planning approaches for the
Eastern Ontario coastal region. Syracuse: SUNY College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, MLA thesis.
Nieman, T.J., J.P. Felleman, and D.B. Harper. 1977. Book review: aesthetic resources of the
coastal zone, by Roy Mann Associates, Inc. Coastal Zone Mgmt. Jour., Vol. 3, No. 2.
Nieman, T.J. (Forthcoming). Visual quality: the attitude and perception of coastal zone user
groups. Paper presented at Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA)
Conference, April 1977.
Viohl, R.G. Jr. 1977. Jamaica Bay: Assessing the visual quality of a coastal area. Syracuse,
SUNY CESF, MLA thesis.

3 6668 00002 4309
Sea Grant Reprint Series