Empowering public participation in assessing the indicators of aesthetic value for historical landscape: a case study on Melaka, Malaysia

Figures & data

Figure 1. The theory-driven indicators.

Figure 2. The theory-driven indicators modified from Ode et al. (2010).

Figure 3. The keyword composition of the indicators.

Figure 4. The composition of the photo-setting adopted from Rosley (2013).

Figure 5. A compilation images of areas in the historical district of Melaka comprised of the Stadhuys buildings (Photos 1, 2, 4, and 5), the Melaka River (Photos 1 and 3) and the remnants of A’ Famosa Fort (Photo 3).

Table 1. Reliability and separation index.

	Item reliability	Item separation	Person reliability	Person separation
1	0.95	4.50	0.77	2.19
2	0.97	5.31	0.77	2.42
3	0.97	5.67	0.71	2.24
4	0.87	4.44	0.79	2.93
5	0.97	6.08	0.73	2.65

Table 2. Point measured correlation and Z standard.

Entry number	Total score	Total count	Measure	Model S.E	Infit		Outfit		PT-measure		Exact	Match	Item
					MNSQ	ZSTD	MNSQ	ZSTD	CORR	EXP	OBS%	EXP%
117	177	81	1.48	.13	2.12	6.1	2.04	5.8	.13	.39	23.5	39.3	c5e_Hdis
61	190	81	1.27	.13	1.42	2.7	1.43	2.8	−.03	.40	30.9	39.7	c1e_Hdis
29	194	81	1.21	.12	1.52	3.2	1.51	3.2	.21	.40	34.6	39.8	c4e_Hdis
37	194	81	1.21	.12	1.30	2.0	1.32	2.1	.11	.40	33.3	39.8	c3e_Hdis
93	194	80	1.17	.12	1.15	1.1	1.15	4.0	.20	.40	37.5	39.6	c12e_Hdis
45	199	81	1.13	.12	1.45	2.9	1.50	3.2	−.01	.40	37.0	39.9	c2e_Hdis
MEAN	271.1	80.6	.00	.13	1.00	−.1	1.00	−.1			43.4	42.2
S.D.	41.3	.6	.66	.01	.26	1.7	.26	1.7			7.5	1.4

Table 3. Demographic profile of respondents.

Educational background	Population	%
Secondary	21	16.7
Certificate	9	7.1
Diploma	17	13.5
Degree	79	62.7
Age
15–20	25	19.9
21–25	72	57.1
26–30	11	8.7
31–35	5	4.0
36–40	9	7.1
41 and above	4	3.2
Gender
Male	66	52.4
Female	60	47.6
Ethnicity
Malay	97	77.0
Chinese	11	8.7
Indian	10	7.9
Others	8	6.4
Familiarity
1–5 months	31	24.6
6–12 months	16	12.7
1–6 years	71	56.3
Seven years and above	7	6.5
Origin
Melaka	9	7.1
Outside Melaka	117	92.9
Area of residence
Urban	72	57.1
Urban fringe	30	23.8
Rural	24	19.1

Table 4. The compilation results of the t-test.

Factor	Age						Gender		Ethnicity				Residency
Indicator	15–20	21–25	26–30	31–35	36–40	41 and above	Ma	Fe	Mal	Chi	Ind	Oth	Ur	UF	Ru
Mystery	0.00	−1.54	0.08	0.13	0.00	1.12	1.02	−1.84	0.87	2.31	2.24	0.24	0.34	−0.74	1.08
Legibility	−0.91	−1.11	−2.20	2.78	0.09	−0.02	−0.92	0.11	1.13	0.74	1.67	0.87	−1.32	−1.56	1.11
Coherence	1.02	2.43	0.10	−0.15	−1.17	−1.43	1.45	0.00	0.63	0.53	−2.36	−2.31	1.42	1.66	1.10
Stewardship	1.00	−0.70	−0.20	1.11	0.87	0.04	1.00	−0.70	1.36	0.65	−0.78	−0.77	1.54	−1.70	−1.21
Openness	1.98	−1.13	−0.91	1.23	1.50	2.80	1.93	1.14	−0.72	1.05	1.93	−1.36	−0.68	−1.43	1.00
Naturalness	0.81	−0.60	1.21	1.11	−0.98	1.87	−0.81	1.63	−1.21	0.19	1.41	1.31	0.45	−2.61	−0.11
Complexity	0.02	0.05	0.54	0.23	0.24	1.65	0.22	0.23	0.67	1.34	0.81	0.65	0.62	1.45	0.54
Diversity	0.09	0.76	0.56	1.56	0.01	0.98	0.75	0.77	−0.87	−1.11	−1.43	0.88	1.39	1.26	0.56

The colour shading indicates that these indicators are significant in representing people’s perception of the historical landscape based on the consistency of the statistical values of the t-test across the demographic factors.

Table

Factor	Educational level				Origin		Familiarity
Indicator	Sec	Cert	Dip	Deg	Native	Non-native	1–5 months	6–12 months	1–6 years	7 years and above
Mystery	−1.54	1.07	0.13	0.00	1.34	−2.57	1.66	−2.36	−0.34	−0.11
Legibility	1.98	−0.23	0.54	0.98	0.09	3.65	4.57	1.20	−2.09	−1.10
Coherence	1.09	0.46	−0.15	−1.17	1.45	−0.60	0.76	0.47	1.68	2.31
Stewardship	1.56	1.67	−0.67	1.11	0.23	0.76	1.74	−0.32	−1.45	0.88
Openness	−0.13	−0.69	−0.43	1.50	0.87	0.70	1.34	1.11	0.32	−0.87
Naturalness	−1.11	0.13	1.45	−0.01	0.31	2.14	0.09	−1.25	−1.45	1.05
Complexity	0.21	0.55	0.98	0.54	0.11	1.76	1.11	1.56	0.43	0.44
Diversity	1.11	1.34	2.42	−0.98	1.21	0.32	0.34	1.87	0.55	0.23

The colour shading indicates that these indicators are significant in representing people’s perception of the historical landscape based on the consistency of the statistical values of the t-test across the demographic factors.

Figure 6. Model of visual landscape assessment in the historical landscape.

Ode, Å., Hagerhall, C. M., & Sang, N. (2010). Analysing visual landscape complexity: Theory and application. Landscape Research, 35(1), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390903414935

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rosley, M. S. F. (2013). Indicator validation in landscape visual quality assessment based on experts and stakeholders perception. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

 Google Scholar