Difference in Visual Preference for Natural Landscape Between Urban and Rural Residents

도시와 전원 거주자의 자연경관에 대한 시각적 선호도 차이

  • Hong, Jeong-Kee (Policy Cordination Division, Ministry of Environment) ;
  • Lee, Gwan-Gyu (Department of Landscape Architecture, Kangwon National University)
  • Received : 2010.01.16
  • Accepted : 2010.02.09
  • Published : 2010.02.01

Abstract

The study was conducted to examine the possible psychological difference in visual preference for natural landscape depending on the residence characteristic of the visitors, with the aim to use as the reference when creating space for natural landscape. Visitors were classified into three groups, namely, urban, suburban, and rural residents, and their preferred type of landscape was surveyed. The result showed that regardless of their residence the highest preference was to the place with superior natural landscape features, and among such features the common preference was toward the landscapes with horizons and those with animals. Urban and suburban residents showed similar preference pattern, and there was artistically significant difference with rural residents. In this respect, the difference in preference for natural landscapes could be induced between urban and rural residents. Rural residents had similar preference with urban residents in that they both preferred the place with superior natural landscape features, but differed in that the former had significantly higher preference toward the landscapes that have mixed artificial elements. From the above research, the following conclusions can be inferred:for regions that need to create natural landscapes, differentiated visual landscape plans and strategies need to be established taking into account, inter alia, the natural richness of the neighborhood natural environment; for regions that need to conserve and manage natural environment and landscapes, the measures to adjust the natural landscape management plans need to be established taking into account the neighborhood environment of the protected areas and the number of visitors to the region.

Keywords

References

  1. 노화준. 1995. 정책학원론. 박영사.
  2. 노화준. 1999. 기획과 결정을 위한 정책분석론. 박영사.
  3. 박영미. 1994. 계층분석절차에 의한 행정정보시스템 내부요소의 중요도 평가에 관한 연구. 서울대 행정대학원 박사학위논문.
  4. 엄붕훈.우형택. 1999. 한국형 전원주택단지의 지속가능성 지표개발에 관한 연구. 한국조경학회 27(1):64-78.
  5. 오택섭. 1990. 사회과학 데이터분석법. 나남.
  6. 은희봉․김봉선. 1998. 계층화의사결정법(AHP)을 이용한 전투기의 기종선정에 관한 연구. 대한산업공학회 '98추계 학술대회 논문집: 856-835.
  7. 이인성. 1998. 수치변환척도 및 단순화방식 적용에 따른 계층분석과정(AHP)의 일관도 및 정확도의 분석. 대한국토도시계획학회지 33(3):347-362.
  8. 채서일. 1995. 사회과학 조사방법론. 학현사.
  9. Belton, V. and Gear, T. 1983. On a shortcoming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 11:228-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(83)90047-6
  10. Belton, V. 1986. A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multiattribute value function. European Journal of Operational Research, 26:7-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90155-4
  11. Greenlaw, A. 1973. Observed landscape tastes. University of Manchester Centre for Urban and Regional Research, Landscape Evaluation Research Project Occasional paper no.4B.
  12. Kamenetzky, R. D. 1982. The relationship between the analytic hierarchy process and the additive value function. Decision Science, 13:702- 713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1982.tb01900.x
  13. Lowenthal, D. 1978. Finding valued landscape. Progress in Human Geography, 2(3):273- 418.
  14. Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarch Process. McGraw-Hill.
  15. Saaty, T. L. 1987. Rank generation, preservation, and reversal in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Decision Science, 18:157-177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1987.tb01514.x
  16. Saaty, T. L., and Kearns, K. P. 1985. The Analytic Hierarchy Process Series Vol.IV-Analytical Planning:The Organization of Systems. RWS PUBLICATIONS.