**2.2.6 Gestalt principles of visual perception**

Gestalt theory was developed by German psychologists Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka and Wolfgang Köhler in the early 20th century. The German word *die Gestalt* means "form" or "shape" and Gestalt theory of perception can be summarized as that people tend to perceive things as wholes rather than separate parts. It proposes "laws of organization in perceptual forms" (Wertheimer, 1938) which have been applied by various design disciplines. Basically, people perceive visual stimuli as organized or grouped patterns. Gestalt principles related to spatial design are briefly explained below.

*Figure-ground relationship*: As Köhler (1938) states "*figure perception is represented in the optic field by differences of potential along the entire outline or border of the figure*". Thus, contrast plays an important role in distinguishing figure from the ground. The most famous example that demonstrates figure-ground relationship is probably the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin's "Rubin's vase" (Figure 2). The figure-ground relationship is related to legibility in spatial design.

Fig. 2. Figure-ground relationship in Rubin's vase (Baluch & Itti, 2011).

Landscape Perception 261

Zube *et al.* (1982) identified four research paradigms on landscape assessment and perception which are; expert, psychophysical, cognitive and experiential paradigms (Taylor *et al.*, 1987). *The expert paradigm*: this paradigm is based on expert judgments of visual quality of landscapes. Evaluation of landscape quality depends on formal characteristics of the landscape such as landform, vegetation, color, texture etc. Another assumption of this paradigm is that natural ecosystems have the greatest aesthetic value. This paradigm is criticized for the lack of user environment and being incompatible with users' perceptions (Lekagul, 2002). Furthermore, S. Kaplan (1988a) points out that experts perceive visual environment different to other people, and expert judgments are "a dubious source of

*The psychophysical paradigm*: In psychophysical paradigm, in contrast to expert paradigm visual quality of the landscape is evaluated by the general public or special interest groups. The main assumption of this paradigm is landscapes have a stimulus property which is external to the observer who perceives the landscape without conscious thinking. Ranking

*The cognitive paradigm*: The cognitive paradigm focuses on why people prefer particular landscapes. The research is directed mostly towards developing a theoretical basis. In contrast to psychophysical paradigm, cognitive paradigm assumes that cognitive processes influence aesthetic judgments. Mostly verbal evaluation techniques, such as semantic differential analysis and adjective checklists, have been used to evaluate preferences and meanings. Most of the evolutionary theories on environmental perception (e.g. prospectrefuge theory and information processing theory) form a basis for this paradigm. However, this paradigm neglects the physical environment and rather focuses on meanings associated

*The experiential paradigm*: This paradigm focuses on human-environment interaction. Human experiences affect the landscape's perceived value. This approach is commonly used in "sense of place" studies and mainly by geographers. However, experiential approach is more subjective than cognitive and psychophysical paradigms; therefore reliability and

Although paradigms explained above may seem completely different from each other, each contributes to overall comprehension of environmental perception. In terms of design and planning, the expert paradigm has been the most used approach in visual landscape assessment. However, there is a certain need for involvement of public or users in order to create enjoyable places for people. Fenton & Reser (1988) criticize that human geographers and landscape architects tend to use *atheoretical* and *apsychological* methods while psychologists use mainly theoretically derived psychometric methods. Professional differences might make it difficult to find a common basis for theoretical and methodological research. Nevertheless, collaboration of disciplines involved in

Assessment of landscape preferences is widely studied in environmental perception research. Landscape preference studies aim to investigate how and why people prefer some

validity of the results are hard to be measured (Taylor *et al.*, 1987).

environmental perception studies is essential to resolve some of the conflicts.

objective judgment" about what other people really care about in the landscape.

and sorting are widely used techniques in visual assessments within this paradigm.

with landscapes (Taylor *et al.*, 1987).

**2.4 Landscape preferences** 

*Proximity*: Objects located close to each other tend to be perceived as groups. For example; the number "*3012*" is perceived as two different numbers when a space inserted in the middle: *30 12*.

*Similarity*: Objects that have similar visual characteristics such as color, shape, direction etc. are perceived in groups (Figure 3).

Fig. 3. Gestalt factor of similarity.

*Continuation:* Graham (2008) explains continuation as "*continuation occurs when the eye follows along a line, curve, or a sequence of shapes, even when it crosses over negative and positive shapes*" (Figure 4).

Fig. 4. Factor of continuation (Graham, 2008).

*Closure*: There is a tendency to close and mentally complete the missing parts of an image which is visually incomplete (Figure 5).

Fig. 5. Factor of closure (Graham, 2008).

#### **2.3 Overview of research methodology**

Basically, there are two approaches in visual landscape assessment; objective and subjective. Objective approach to visual landscape assessment assumes that visual quality of the landscape is an inherent characteristic and physical attributes of the environment determine its aesthetic value. On the contrary, subjective approach assumes that visual quality is in the eye of beholder and aesthetic value of an environment can be determined through subjective evaluation. There are also studies which have integrated both objective and subjective approaches.

*Proximity*: Objects located close to each other tend to be perceived as groups. For example; the number "*3012*" is perceived as two different numbers when a space inserted in the middle: *30 12*.

*Similarity*: Objects that have similar visual characteristics such as color, shape, direction etc.

*Continuation:* Graham (2008) explains continuation as "*continuation occurs when the eye follows along a line, curve, or a sequence of shapes, even when it crosses over negative and positive shapes*"

*Closure*: There is a tendency to close and mentally complete the missing parts of an image

Basically, there are two approaches in visual landscape assessment; objective and subjective. Objective approach to visual landscape assessment assumes that visual quality of the landscape is an inherent characteristic and physical attributes of the environment determine its aesthetic value. On the contrary, subjective approach assumes that visual quality is in the eye of beholder and aesthetic value of an environment can be determined through subjective evaluation. There

are also studies which have integrated both objective and subjective approaches.

are perceived in groups (Figure 3).

Fig. 3. Gestalt factor of similarity.

Fig. 4. Factor of continuation (Graham, 2008).

which is visually incomplete (Figure 5).

Fig. 5. Factor of closure (Graham, 2008).

**2.3 Overview of research methodology** 

(Figure 4).

Zube *et al.* (1982) identified four research paradigms on landscape assessment and perception which are; expert, psychophysical, cognitive and experiential paradigms (Taylor *et al.*, 1987).

*The expert paradigm*: this paradigm is based on expert judgments of visual quality of landscapes. Evaluation of landscape quality depends on formal characteristics of the landscape such as landform, vegetation, color, texture etc. Another assumption of this paradigm is that natural ecosystems have the greatest aesthetic value. This paradigm is criticized for the lack of user environment and being incompatible with users' perceptions (Lekagul, 2002). Furthermore, S. Kaplan (1988a) points out that experts perceive visual environment different to other people, and expert judgments are "a dubious source of objective judgment" about what other people really care about in the landscape.

*The psychophysical paradigm*: In psychophysical paradigm, in contrast to expert paradigm visual quality of the landscape is evaluated by the general public or special interest groups. The main assumption of this paradigm is landscapes have a stimulus property which is external to the observer who perceives the landscape without conscious thinking. Ranking and sorting are widely used techniques in visual assessments within this paradigm.

*The cognitive paradigm*: The cognitive paradigm focuses on why people prefer particular landscapes. The research is directed mostly towards developing a theoretical basis. In contrast to psychophysical paradigm, cognitive paradigm assumes that cognitive processes influence aesthetic judgments. Mostly verbal evaluation techniques, such as semantic differential analysis and adjective checklists, have been used to evaluate preferences and meanings. Most of the evolutionary theories on environmental perception (e.g. prospectrefuge theory and information processing theory) form a basis for this paradigm. However, this paradigm neglects the physical environment and rather focuses on meanings associated with landscapes (Taylor *et al.*, 1987).

*The experiential paradigm*: This paradigm focuses on human-environment interaction. Human experiences affect the landscape's perceived value. This approach is commonly used in "sense of place" studies and mainly by geographers. However, experiential approach is more subjective than cognitive and psychophysical paradigms; therefore reliability and validity of the results are hard to be measured (Taylor *et al.*, 1987).

Although paradigms explained above may seem completely different from each other, each contributes to overall comprehension of environmental perception. In terms of design and planning, the expert paradigm has been the most used approach in visual landscape assessment. However, there is a certain need for involvement of public or users in order to create enjoyable places for people. Fenton & Reser (1988) criticize that human geographers and landscape architects tend to use *atheoretical* and *apsychological* methods while psychologists use mainly theoretically derived psychometric methods. Professional differences might make it difficult to find a common basis for theoretical and methodological research. Nevertheless, collaboration of disciplines involved in environmental perception studies is essential to resolve some of the conflicts.

#### **2.4 Landscape preferences**

Assessment of landscape preferences is widely studied in environmental perception research. Landscape preference studies aim to investigate how and why people prefer some

Landscape Perception 263

suggested that moderate novelty, increase diversity, increased contrast among buildings, good maintenance, order, more vegetation and reduced vehicle prominence might produce

According to Bourassa (1990), aesthetic response occurs at both biological and cultural levels. Falk Balling (2010) also state that "*that human landscape preferences is best understood as a continuous progression of aesthetic ideals, tempered by social convention, passed on from one generation to the next through human culture*". But do culture and socio-demographic factors really affect preferences? There are several cross-cultural studies that investigate preferences for landscapes and landscape elements. Generally, the results show that despite cultural differences, people seem to have similar preferences for specific landscapes; however the concepts of novelty and familiarity can affect preferences for people from different cultures. Familiarity plays an important role in feeling secure and safe. People feel comfortable and relaxed in environments which they are familiar to (Kaplan *et al.*, 1998). On the other hand too much familiarity may become boring and people seek for novelty. For instance, Yang & Brown (1992) found that traditional Japanese style landscapes and water presence were highly preferred by people from both Korean and Western cultures. However they also found that while Koreans preferred Western style landscapes, Western tourists preferred Korean style landscapes. A similar result was found by Nasar (1988a). His study results showed that although there were consensus on preferences for ordered, natural, open and well-kept scenes; Japanese subjects highly preferred the American scenes and vice versa. His findings supported Berlyne's assumption that people prefer novelty to familiarity. He also pointed out that the results would have been different if subjects had been chosen from older population since Sonnenfeld (1966) claims that younger people prefer novelty and others familiarity (Nasar, 1988a). In their study Yang &Kaplan (1990) investigated landscape style preferences of Korean and Western individuals. They found a cross-cultural similarity in preferences in favor of landscapes with natural styles. Landscapes with rectangular or

Lyons (1983) showed that there is a strong relationship between age, gender, residential experience and landscape preferences. She found that preference levels changed in different age groups, adolescent male and females had different preferences, urban and rural residents had different preferences, familiar vegetational biomes were preferred highest, and there was no evidence that landscape preferences were shaped by innate or evolutionary factors. Yu (1995) also reported that people from different living environments (rural vs. urban) had different preferences; rural residents had high preference for novelty and modernity. He also indicated that landscape preferences were strongly influenced by education levels. However, his findings did not show any significant relation between

Landscape preference studies are generally based on public or user (non-expert) evaluations. Ranking, rating or sorting of visual stimuli and verbal instruments are popular tools in determination of landscape preferences. Participants are asked to rank, rate or sort visual stimuli according to their preferences. The outcomes can be evaluated in terms of most and least preferred scenes, preference predictors (e.g. coherence, diversity, naturalness etc.), correlations between preference and predictors, content analysis of preferred

environments or comparison of different landscape characteristics.

highly preferred urban environments.

formal designs were less preferred by both groups.

gender and preferences.

environments to others. People judge and interpret their environments and they respond to environments in terms of affective responses. Environmental preference is not luxury for people but essential and tied to basic concerns (R. Kaplan S. Kaplan, 1989). Kaplan sees preference as an indicator of aesthetic judgment (1988b) and as a complex process which involves perception of things and space and reacting to them in terms of their potential usefulness and supportiveness (1988a). According to Charlesworth (1976), species has to be able to both recognize and prefer environments in which it functions well (S. Kaplan, 1988a). Preference for specific landscapes is about the organization of the space, rather than the individual elements (R. Kaplan S. Kaplan, 1989), hence designers should focus on the integrity of different landscape elements.

The bio-evolutionary perspective on landscape preferences were explained in the previous section (Section 2.2): long history of human evolution is believed to be the reason for why we prefer some environments to others. One consistent finding of environmental preference research is that people prefer naturalness or natural environments to human-modified environments (e.g. R. Kaplan S. Kaplan, 1989; van den Berg *et al.*, 2003). Presence of water also increases the preference ratings (Hull & Stewart, 1995; Yang & Brown, 1992). Natural scenes are also assumed to contribute to well-being by reducing stress levels, and to have positive influence on functioning and behavior (Ulrich *et al.*, 1991). It is assumed that preferences for savanna-like landscapes are linked to human evolutionary history, as an adaptation to East Africa savannas for survival (Falk Balling, 2010). Ulrich (1979) found that homogenous ground texture, medium to high levels of depth, presence of a focal point, and moderate levels of mystery leads to high level of preferences in natural scenes (Porteous, 1996).

Complexity has been one of the central concepts in environmental preference research. Although R. Kaplan S. Kaplan (1989) have found that coherence is more significant in explaining preferences, Ode Miller (2011) suggest that landscape preferences have a relationship between measurements of complexity. Their study on rural landscapes showed that "*a landscape with an unequal distribution of land cover, a moderate amount of land cover, and a low level of aggregation is more likely to be preferred over a landscape with many land-cover classes, equal distribution, and strong aggregation*". Complexity is also found to have a positive influence on urban landscape preference (Falk Balling, 2010).

Environmental preference research generally focuses on natural or rural environments and there is little research on urban landscape preferences. This might be due to the fact that urban environments are highly complex structured; there are too many kinds of elements (both natural and cultural) that form urban structure. Moreover, social dynamics have important influence on shaping urban environments. Hence, it is rather difficult to measure and to assess landscape preference determinants in urban landscapes. One of the preference studies in urban environment was conducted by Nasar and his colleagues (1988a). They investigated the visual preferences for urban street scenes. Nasar used bipolar adjectives to describe the environments; closed-open, simple-diverse, chaotic-orderly, dilapidated-wellkept, vehicles prominent-vehicles not in sight, and nature (greenery) not in sight- nature (greenery) prominent. He found (just like he expected) that people preferred ordered, natural, well-kept, and open scenes with vehicles not prominent. However, Nasar was cautious about the interdependence of the variables; he expressed the need for further research for explanation of the relationship between these variables. Nevertheless Nasar

environments to others. People judge and interpret their environments and they respond to environments in terms of affective responses. Environmental preference is not luxury for people but essential and tied to basic concerns (R. Kaplan S. Kaplan, 1989). Kaplan sees preference as an indicator of aesthetic judgment (1988b) and as a complex process which involves perception of things and space and reacting to them in terms of their potential usefulness and supportiveness (1988a). According to Charlesworth (1976), species has to be able to both recognize and prefer environments in which it functions well (S. Kaplan, 1988a). Preference for specific landscapes is about the organization of the space, rather than the individual elements (R. Kaplan S. Kaplan, 1989), hence designers should focus on the

The bio-evolutionary perspective on landscape preferences were explained in the previous section (Section 2.2): long history of human evolution is believed to be the reason for why we prefer some environments to others. One consistent finding of environmental preference research is that people prefer naturalness or natural environments to human-modified environments (e.g. R. Kaplan S. Kaplan, 1989; van den Berg *et al.*, 2003). Presence of water also increases the preference ratings (Hull & Stewart, 1995; Yang & Brown, 1992). Natural scenes are also assumed to contribute to well-being by reducing stress levels, and to have positive influence on functioning and behavior (Ulrich *et al.*, 1991). It is assumed that preferences for savanna-like landscapes are linked to human evolutionary history, as an adaptation to East Africa savannas for survival (Falk Balling, 2010). Ulrich (1979) found that homogenous ground texture, medium to high levels of depth, presence of a focal point, and moderate levels of mystery leads to high level of preferences in natural scenes

Complexity has been one of the central concepts in environmental preference research. Although R. Kaplan S. Kaplan (1989) have found that coherence is more significant in explaining preferences, Ode Miller (2011) suggest that landscape preferences have a relationship between measurements of complexity. Their study on rural landscapes showed that "*a landscape with an unequal distribution of land cover, a moderate amount of land cover, and a low level of aggregation is more likely to be preferred over a landscape with many land-cover classes, equal distribution, and strong aggregation*". Complexity is also found to have a positive

Environmental preference research generally focuses on natural or rural environments and there is little research on urban landscape preferences. This might be due to the fact that urban environments are highly complex structured; there are too many kinds of elements (both natural and cultural) that form urban structure. Moreover, social dynamics have important influence on shaping urban environments. Hence, it is rather difficult to measure and to assess landscape preference determinants in urban landscapes. One of the preference studies in urban environment was conducted by Nasar and his colleagues (1988a). They investigated the visual preferences for urban street scenes. Nasar used bipolar adjectives to describe the environments; closed-open, simple-diverse, chaotic-orderly, dilapidated-wellkept, vehicles prominent-vehicles not in sight, and nature (greenery) not in sight- nature (greenery) prominent. He found (just like he expected) that people preferred ordered, natural, well-kept, and open scenes with vehicles not prominent. However, Nasar was cautious about the interdependence of the variables; he expressed the need for further research for explanation of the relationship between these variables. Nevertheless Nasar

influence on urban landscape preference (Falk Balling, 2010).

integrity of different landscape elements.

(Porteous, 1996).

suggested that moderate novelty, increase diversity, increased contrast among buildings, good maintenance, order, more vegetation and reduced vehicle prominence might produce highly preferred urban environments.

According to Bourassa (1990), aesthetic response occurs at both biological and cultural levels. Falk Balling (2010) also state that "*that human landscape preferences is best understood as a continuous progression of aesthetic ideals, tempered by social convention, passed on from one generation to the next through human culture*". But do culture and socio-demographic factors really affect preferences? There are several cross-cultural studies that investigate preferences for landscapes and landscape elements. Generally, the results show that despite cultural differences, people seem to have similar preferences for specific landscapes; however the concepts of novelty and familiarity can affect preferences for people from different cultures. Familiarity plays an important role in feeling secure and safe. People feel comfortable and relaxed in environments which they are familiar to (Kaplan *et al.*, 1998). On the other hand too much familiarity may become boring and people seek for novelty. For instance, Yang & Brown (1992) found that traditional Japanese style landscapes and water presence were highly preferred by people from both Korean and Western cultures. However they also found that while Koreans preferred Western style landscapes, Western tourists preferred Korean style landscapes. A similar result was found by Nasar (1988a). His study results showed that although there were consensus on preferences for ordered, natural, open and well-kept scenes; Japanese subjects highly preferred the American scenes and vice versa. His findings supported Berlyne's assumption that people prefer novelty to familiarity. He also pointed out that the results would have been different if subjects had been chosen from older population since Sonnenfeld (1966) claims that younger people prefer novelty and others familiarity (Nasar, 1988a). In their study Yang &Kaplan (1990) investigated landscape style preferences of Korean and Western individuals. They found a cross-cultural similarity in preferences in favor of landscapes with natural styles. Landscapes with rectangular or formal designs were less preferred by both groups.

Lyons (1983) showed that there is a strong relationship between age, gender, residential experience and landscape preferences. She found that preference levels changed in different age groups, adolescent male and females had different preferences, urban and rural residents had different preferences, familiar vegetational biomes were preferred highest, and there was no evidence that landscape preferences were shaped by innate or evolutionary factors. Yu (1995) also reported that people from different living environments (rural vs. urban) had different preferences; rural residents had high preference for novelty and modernity. He also indicated that landscape preferences were strongly influenced by education levels. However, his findings did not show any significant relation between gender and preferences.

Landscape preference studies are generally based on public or user (non-expert) evaluations. Ranking, rating or sorting of visual stimuli and verbal instruments are popular tools in determination of landscape preferences. Participants are asked to rank, rate or sort visual stimuli according to their preferences. The outcomes can be evaluated in terms of most and least preferred scenes, preference predictors (e.g. coherence, diversity, naturalness etc.), correlations between preference and predictors, content analysis of preferred environments or comparison of different landscape characteristics.

Landscape Perception 265

daily lives. These constructed environmental images form mental representations which are unique to the individual. This process is called cognitive mapping. Memory plays a crucial role in cognitive mapping. As S. Kaplan (1978) states *a cognitive map is based on familiar objects and events*. Hence, cognitive maps can change or improve depending on the individual's

People derive information from their environments through neurophysiological processes, but they also rely on personality and cultural factors to produce cognitive images (Knox & Marston, 2003). Thus, cognitive maps are highly personal constructs. A cognitive map of an individual can be quite different from an actual physical map in terms of accurate distance and structural organization. Simplification and distortion are two most important attributes of cognitive maps (Knox & Marston, 2003). The images might be incomplete or have inaccurate distance estimates. Nevertheless, cognitive images reflect how we see our environments and how we connect places to each other. Consequently, people's orientation and navigation through space can affect their quality of life. Sense of orientation helps people to feel confident and less anxious (Kaplan *et al.*, 1998). Cognitive maps help people to establish their routes and find their way, no matter how incomplete or distorted they are.

The term of "cognitive map" was first introduced by Tolman (1948) in his study where he investigated the spatial behavior of rats in a maze (Göregenli, 2010). However it was Kevin Lynch (1960) who pioneered cognitive mapping studies in urban design and planning with his famous work "The Image of the City". Lynch puts an emphasis on the concept of legibility for structuring and identifying the environment. Legibility plays an important role in way-finding and environmental images are fundamental for way-finding. An environmental image is a product of both immediate sensation and the memory of past experience (Lynch, 1960). Clarity of environmental images, thus the degree of legibility facilitates one's way-finding. Lynch identified five key elements of urban form which determine the legibility of an urban environment; paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks. Although paths were found to be the dominant elements of environmental images, Lynch emphasizes that all of the elements operate together and interrelation of

Lynch's work has been mainly criticized for its small sample size and research technique; his five elements of legibility had already been established before interviewing the subjects. Later, he (1984) also criticized his own work for not being practical but being academically interesting (Pacione, 2005). His work also neglected the importance of symbolic meanings associated with places. Lynch was aware of the influence of meaning attached to a place on one's environmental images, however his work focused on urban form and he stated that form should be used to strengthen the meaning in urban design. Still, his legibility framework is still considered as fundamental and influencing in cognitive mapping studies

Today's fast paced urban life-styles urge us doing our daily tasks in a limited time. Hence, difficulties in getting to the desired destination may cause people to feel stressed out. As a primary component of cognitive mapping, legibility should be considered as an essential objective in place-making. Cognitive maps can be used in landscape architecture to investigate the relationship between characteristics of outdoor environments and perceived legibility. Evaluation of existing structure and organization of the environments will

these elements are important in creating legible urban environments.

experiences.

in urban environments.

Although photographs and slides have been widely used as visual stimuli in preference research, there has been a constant debate on the representational validity of them. While some researchers have found that photographs can be adequate and valid resources to use (Dunn, 1976; Shuttleworth, 1980; Stewart *et al.*, 1984), some others do not agree with this idea (Kroh Gimblett, 1992; Scott Canter, 1997). R. Kaplan (1985) points out that use of photographs is less in cost and easy to administer, however sampling of the environments and selection of photographs require careful attention. In-situ assessments are time consuming, expensive and not practical. Besides, other variables of the landscape, (such as air condition and brightness) may vary during assessments and that might affect visual preference judgments of observers. On the other hand, a landscape is definitely more than just a scene and it is dynamic, however photographs and slides reflect landscapes as more static. Sevenant Antrop (2011) state that depending on the character of the landscapes, some vistas are better presented by panoramic photographs, while some by normal photographs; thus, horizontal angle of view should be considered while selecting photographs. Palmer & Hoffman (2001) also support using panoramic images to increase validity. They also suggest that comparing the ratings of representations and actual field conditions from several individuals would help to establish validity of representations.

Current technology allows further visualization techniques such as computer graphics, 3Dmodelling, virtual reality, GIS-based photorealistic visualisation, etc. (Sevenant Antrop, 2011). However, validity issues remain the same. In their study, Bishop Rohrmann (2003) concluded that "computer simulations do not necessarily generate the same responses as the corresponding real environment". On the other hand, detailing seems to be an important aspect in computer visualizations; higher detail levels are believed to increase the validity (Bishop Rohrmann, 2003; Daniel Meitner, 2001). Nevertheless photographs still seem to be the most popular tools as surrogates for actual landscapes. However as concern about validity increases, researchers will need to prove reliability of their results and we'll see much more debate on this issue.

Alternatively, sometimes verbal instruments such as verbal descriptions and bipolar adjective scales are used for assessment of landscape preferences. People can explain their preferences better by using words rather than rating or ranking visual stimuli. Although verbal assessments are quick and low-cost, analysis of the data may not be easy. Different people may use different adjectives or descriptions for the same preference judgment. Therefore content analysis of verbal descriptions should be done by experts or trained individuals in order to improve accuracy of results. On the other hand bipolar adjective lists, or semantic differentials, have been criticized for presenting adjectives selected by the researcher and therefore limiting people. However, Echelberger (1979) states that semantic differential may contribute to landscape preference assessment. On the contrary R. Kaplan (1985) claims that using adjectives does not tell much about preferences.

#### **2.5 Environmental images and cognitive maps**

Cognition involves perception, thinking, problem solving and organization of information and ideas (Downs Stea, 1973). Hence, environmental cognition can be defined as perception, understanding, organization and retrieval of spatial information. Through cognition, we construct images of our environment which help us to find our way in our

Although photographs and slides have been widely used as visual stimuli in preference research, there has been a constant debate on the representational validity of them. While some researchers have found that photographs can be adequate and valid resources to use (Dunn, 1976; Shuttleworth, 1980; Stewart *et al.*, 1984), some others do not agree with this idea (Kroh Gimblett, 1992; Scott Canter, 1997). R. Kaplan (1985) points out that use of photographs is less in cost and easy to administer, however sampling of the environments and selection of photographs require careful attention. In-situ assessments are time consuming, expensive and not practical. Besides, other variables of the landscape, (such as air condition and brightness) may vary during assessments and that might affect visual preference judgments of observers. On the other hand, a landscape is definitely more than just a scene and it is dynamic, however photographs and slides reflect landscapes as more static. Sevenant Antrop (2011) state that depending on the character of the landscapes, some vistas are better presented by panoramic photographs, while some by normal photographs; thus, horizontal angle of view should be considered while selecting photographs. Palmer & Hoffman (2001) also support using panoramic images to increase validity. They also suggest that comparing the ratings of representations and actual field conditions from several individuals would help to establish validity of representations.

Current technology allows further visualization techniques such as computer graphics, 3Dmodelling, virtual reality, GIS-based photorealistic visualisation, etc. (Sevenant Antrop, 2011). However, validity issues remain the same. In their study, Bishop Rohrmann (2003) concluded that "computer simulations do not necessarily generate the same responses as the corresponding real environment". On the other hand, detailing seems to be an important aspect in computer visualizations; higher detail levels are believed to increase the validity (Bishop Rohrmann, 2003; Daniel Meitner, 2001). Nevertheless photographs still seem to be the most popular tools as surrogates for actual landscapes. However as concern about validity increases, researchers will need to prove reliability of their results and we'll see

Alternatively, sometimes verbal instruments such as verbal descriptions and bipolar adjective scales are used for assessment of landscape preferences. People can explain their preferences better by using words rather than rating or ranking visual stimuli. Although verbal assessments are quick and low-cost, analysis of the data may not be easy. Different people may use different adjectives or descriptions for the same preference judgment. Therefore content analysis of verbal descriptions should be done by experts or trained individuals in order to improve accuracy of results. On the other hand bipolar adjective lists, or semantic differentials, have been criticized for presenting adjectives selected by the researcher and therefore limiting people. However, Echelberger (1979) states that semantic differential may contribute to landscape preference assessment. On the contrary R. Kaplan

Cognition involves perception, thinking, problem solving and organization of information and ideas (Downs Stea, 1973). Hence, environmental cognition can be defined as perception, understanding, organization and retrieval of spatial information. Through cognition, we construct images of our environment which help us to find our way in our

(1985) claims that using adjectives does not tell much about preferences.

**2.5 Environmental images and cognitive maps** 

much more debate on this issue.

daily lives. These constructed environmental images form mental representations which are unique to the individual. This process is called cognitive mapping. Memory plays a crucial role in cognitive mapping. As S. Kaplan (1978) states *a cognitive map is based on familiar objects and events*. Hence, cognitive maps can change or improve depending on the individual's experiences.

People derive information from their environments through neurophysiological processes, but they also rely on personality and cultural factors to produce cognitive images (Knox & Marston, 2003). Thus, cognitive maps are highly personal constructs. A cognitive map of an individual can be quite different from an actual physical map in terms of accurate distance and structural organization. Simplification and distortion are two most important attributes of cognitive maps (Knox & Marston, 2003). The images might be incomplete or have inaccurate distance estimates. Nevertheless, cognitive images reflect how we see our environments and how we connect places to each other. Consequently, people's orientation and navigation through space can affect their quality of life. Sense of orientation helps people to feel confident and less anxious (Kaplan *et al.*, 1998). Cognitive maps help people to establish their routes and find their way, no matter how incomplete or distorted they are.

The term of "cognitive map" was first introduced by Tolman (1948) in his study where he investigated the spatial behavior of rats in a maze (Göregenli, 2010). However it was Kevin Lynch (1960) who pioneered cognitive mapping studies in urban design and planning with his famous work "The Image of the City". Lynch puts an emphasis on the concept of legibility for structuring and identifying the environment. Legibility plays an important role in way-finding and environmental images are fundamental for way-finding. An environmental image is a product of both immediate sensation and the memory of past experience (Lynch, 1960). Clarity of environmental images, thus the degree of legibility facilitates one's way-finding. Lynch identified five key elements of urban form which determine the legibility of an urban environment; paths, edges, districts, nodes and landmarks. Although paths were found to be the dominant elements of environmental images, Lynch emphasizes that all of the elements operate together and interrelation of these elements are important in creating legible urban environments.

Lynch's work has been mainly criticized for its small sample size and research technique; his five elements of legibility had already been established before interviewing the subjects. Later, he (1984) also criticized his own work for not being practical but being academically interesting (Pacione, 2005). His work also neglected the importance of symbolic meanings associated with places. Lynch was aware of the influence of meaning attached to a place on one's environmental images, however his work focused on urban form and he stated that form should be used to strengthen the meaning in urban design. Still, his legibility framework is still considered as fundamental and influencing in cognitive mapping studies in urban environments.

Today's fast paced urban life-styles urge us doing our daily tasks in a limited time. Hence, difficulties in getting to the desired destination may cause people to feel stressed out. As a primary component of cognitive mapping, legibility should be considered as an essential objective in place-making. Cognitive maps can be used in landscape architecture to investigate the relationship between characteristics of outdoor environments and perceived legibility. Evaluation of existing structure and organization of the environments will

Landscape Perception 267

landscape architects. The model is also grounded on Gestalt figure-background relationship, like Schafer's work. It is based on description of the sounds. In Hedford's model figure-ground relationship is combined with two other dimensions; intensity and clarity (Figure 6). According to Hedford, a soundscape can be described as clear if prominent sounds are strongly experienced against a weak background. However, if prominent sounds are weaker than the background, then the soundscape becomes crowded. If both prominent sounds and the background are experienced equally strong, the soundscape can be described as powerful. On the contrary, if both are experienced

weak, the soundscape becomes mild.

Fig. 6. The model of prominence (Hedfords, 2008).

sound can help people feel relaxed (Carles *et al.*, 1999).

Similar to natural landscapes, natural sounds such as bird sound and water sound are highly preferred by people. This may be explained through evolutionary perspective on landscape perception as well as therapeutic effects of natural landscapes (please refer to section 2.4). In fact, relaxation is found to be an important factor for urban open soundscapes (Yang & Kang, 2005). It is known that natural sounds such as bird and water

provide landscape architects to improve their place-making strategies in terms of design and planning.
