Evaluation of the variables affecting usage preferences in reclaimed areas through design focus and intensity

References

• Al-Kodmany, K. 1999. “Using Visualization Techniques for Enhancing Public Participation in Planning and Design: Process, Implementation, and Evaluation.” Landscape and Urban Planning 45 (1): 37–45. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00024-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbogast, B. 2007. Designing the Reclaimed Landscape. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arnberger, A., and R. Eder. 2011. “Exploring the Heterogeneity of Rural Landscape Preferences: An Image-Based Latent Class Approach.” Landscape Research 36 (1): 19–40. doi:10.1080/01426397.2010.536204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arriaza, M., J. Cañas-Ortega, J. Cañas-Madueño, and P. Ruiz-Aviles. 2004. “Assessing the Visual Quality of Rural Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning 69 (1): 115–125. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, J. 1990. Environmental Restoration: Science and Strategies for Restoring the Earth. Washington: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bertamini, M., K. Bennett, and C. Bode. 2011. “The Anterior Bias in Visual art: The Case of Images of Animals.” Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition 16 (6): 673–689. doi:10.1080/1357650X.2010.508219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brabec, E., and C. Smith. 2002. “Agricultural Land Fragmentation: The Spatial Effects of Three Land Protection Strategies in the Eastern United States.” Landscape and Urban Planning 58 (2): 255–268. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00225-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buijs, A., B. Elands, and F. Langers. 2009. “No Wilderness for Immigrants: Cultural Differences in Images of Nature and Landscape Preferences.” Landscape and Urban Planning 91 (3): 113–123. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulut, Z., and H. Yilmaz. 2008. “Determination of Landscape Beauties Through Visual Quality Assessment Method: A Case Study for Kemaliye (Erzincan/Turkey).” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 141 (1): 121–129. doi:10.1007/s10661-007-9882-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burley, J. 1996. “Visual and Ecological Environmental Quality Model for Transportation Planning and Design.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1549 (1): 54–60. doi:10.1177/0361198196154900107.
   Google Scholar
• Burley, J. 2001a. Environmental Design for Reclaiming Surface Mines. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burley, J. 2001b. Post-Mining Land-Use Reclamation: An Introduction from a Planning and Design Perspective, 60–64. Lewiston: America Society of Mining and Reclamation.
   Google Scholar
• Burley, J. 2006. “The Science of Design: Green Vegetation and Flowering Plants do Make a Difference: Quantifying Visual Quality.” The Michigan Landscape 49 (8): 27–30.
   Google Scholar
• Byoung, E., and R. Kaplan. 1990. “The Perception of Landscape Style: A Cross-Cultural Comparison.” Landscape and Urban Planning 19 (3): 251–262. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(90)90024-V.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel, T., and J. Vining. 1983. “Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Landscape Quality.” In Behavior and the Natural Environment, edited by I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill, 39–84. Boston: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Datta, R., D. Joshi, J. Li, and J. Wang. 2006. “Studying Aesthetics in Photographic Images Using a Computational Approach.” Paper Presented at the Computer Vision – ECCV 2006. Berlin: Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Dearden, P. 1984. “Factors Influencing Landscape Preferences: An Empirical Investigation.” Landscape Planning 11 (4): 293–306. doi:10.1016/0304-3924(84)90026-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doley, D., P. Audet, and D. Mulligan. 2012. “Examining the Australian Context for Post-Mined Land Rehabilitation: Reconciling a Paradigm for the Development of Natural and Novel Ecosystems among Post-Disturbance Landscapes.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 163: 85–93. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dronova, I. 2019. “Landscape Beauty: A Wicked Problem in Sustainable Ecosystem Management?” Science of The Total Environment 688: 584–591. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filova, L., J. Vojar, K. Svobodova, and P. Sklenicka. 2015. “The Effect of Landscape Type and Landscape Elements on Public Visual Preferences: Ways to use Knowledge in the Context of Landscape Planning.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58 (11): 2037–2055. doi:10.1080/09640568.2014.973481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, D., D. Franco, I. Mannino, and G. Zanetto. 2003. “The Impact of Agroforestry Networks on Scenic Beauty Estimation.” Landscape and Urban Planning 62 (3): 119–138. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00127-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, J., C. Fowlkes, C. Nothelfer, and S. Palmer. 2008. “Exploring Aesthetic Principles of Spatial Composition Through Stock Photography.” Journal of Vision 8 (6): 337–337. doi:10.1167/8.6.337.
   Google Scholar
• Gowlett, J. 2011. “Special Issue: Innovation and the Evolution of Human Behavior The Vital Sense of Proportion: Transformation, Golden Section, and 1:2 Preference in Acheulean Bifaces.” PaleoAnthropology, 2011: 174–187. doi:10.4207/PA.2011.ART51.
   Google Scholar
• Grammatikopoulou, I., E. Pouta, M. Salmiovirta, and K. Soini. 2012. “Heterogeneous Preferences for Agricultural Landscape Improvements in Southern Finland.” Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2): 181–191. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulpinar Sekban, D., and C. Acar. 2021. “Determining Usages in Post-Mining Sites According to Landscape Design Approaches.” Land Degradation & Development 32 (8): 2661–2676. doi:10.1002/ldr.3933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, K. 2007. “Responses to six Major Terrestrial Biomes in Terms of Scenic Beauty, Preference, and Restorativeness.” Environment and Behavior 39 (4): 529–556. doi:10.1177/0013916506292016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häfner, K., I. Zasada, B. van Zanten, F. Ungaro, M. Koetse, and A. Piorr. 2018. “Assessing Landscape Preferences: A Visual Choice Experiment in the Agricultural Region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany.” Landscape Research 43 (6): 846–861. doi:10.1080/01426397.2017.1386289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoyle, H., J. Hitchmough, and A. Jorgensen. 2017. “All About the ‘wow Factor’? The Relationships Between Aesthetics, Restorative Effect and Perceived Biodiversity in Designed Urban Planting.” Landscape and Urban Planning 164: 109–123. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ives, E., J. Burley, K. Russcher, R. Schutzki, and J. Zhou. 2021. “Visual Metrics for the Maxton Plains Alvars in Michigan, USA.” Landscape Architecture Frontiers 9 (2): 26–36. doi:10.15302/J-LAF-1-020043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jessel, B. 2006. “Elements, Characteristics and Character – Information Functions of Landscapes in Terms of Indicators.” Ecological Indicators 6 (1): 153–167. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, C., M. Patterson, and W. Hammitt. 2000. “Evaluating the Construct Validity of Sense of Belonging as a Measure of Landscape Perception.” Journal of Leisure Research 32 (4): 383–395. doi:10.1080/00222216.2000.11949922.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Junker, B., and M. Buchecker. 2008. “Aesthetic Preferences Versus Ecological Objectives in River Restorations.” Landscape and Urban Planning 85 (3): 141–154. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltenborn, B., and T. Bjerke. 2002. “Associations Between Environmental Value Orientations and Landscape Preferences.” Landscape and Urban Planning 59 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, P. 1981. “Assessing Landscape Attractiveness: A Comparative Test of two new Methods.” Applied Geography 1 (2): 77–96. doi:10.1016/0143-6228(81)90027-8.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature:A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keefe, P., and J. B. Burley. 1998. “Post-mining Predictive Visual Quality Assessment: A Methodology.” In Proceedings Fifteenth Annual Meeting American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation: Mining–Gateway to the Future, edited by D. Throgmorton, J. Nawrot, J. Mead, J. Galetovic, and W. Joseph, 752–760. St. Louis, MO: The American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation.
   Google Scholar
• Luo, H., L. Deng, S. Jiang, C. Song, E. Fu, J. Ma, … X. Li. 2022. “Assessing the Influence of Individual Factors on Visual and Auditory Preference for Rural Landscape: The Case of Chengdu, China.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 727–744. doi:10.1080/09640568.2021.1903403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mborah, C., Bansah, K., & Boateng, M. (2016). Evaluating Alternate Post-Mining Land-Uses: A Review. Environment and Pollution, 5(1), 14-22. doi:10.5539/ep.v5n1p14
   Google Scholar
• Misgav, A. 2000. “Visual Preference of the Public for Vegetation Groups in Israel.” Landscape and Urban Planning 48 (3): 143–159. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00038-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molnarova, K., P. Sklenicka, J. Stiborek, K. Svobodova, M. Salek, and E. Brabec. 2012. “Visual Preferences for Wind Turbines: Location, Numbers and Respondent Characteristics.” Applied Energy 92: 269–278. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neldner, V., B. Wilson, H. Dillewaard, T. Ryan, and D. Butler. 2017. Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland: Version 4.0. Brisbane: Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation.
   Google Scholar
• Newby, F. 1971. “Understanding the Visual Resource.” Paper Presented at the The Forest Recreation Symposium, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Nikolic, S., I. Cosic, M. Pecujlija, and A. Miletic. 2011. “The Effect of the Golden Ratio on Consumer Behaviour.” African Journal of Business Management 5 (20): 8347–8360. doi:10.5897/AJBM11.202.
   Google Scholar
• Ode, Å, G. Fry, M. Tveit, P. Messager, and D. Miller. 2009. “Indicators of Perceived Naturalness as Drivers of Landscape Preference.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (1): 375–383. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partin, S., J. Burley, R. Schutzki, and P. Crawford. 2012. “Concordance Between Photographs and Computer Generated 3D Models in a Michigan Highway Transportation Setting.” In Peer Reviewed Proceedings of Digital Landscape Architecture 2012 at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, edited by E. Buhmann, S. Ervin, and M. Pietsch, 482–471. Köthen: Wichmann.
   Google Scholar
• Rambonilaza, M., and J. Dachary-Bernard. 2007. “Land-use Planning and Public Preferences: What Can we Learn from Choice Experiment Method?” Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (4): 318–326. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogge, E., F. Nevens, and H. Gulinck. 2007. “Perception of Rural Landscapes in Flanders: Looking Beyond Aesthetics.” Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (4): 159–174. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. 2006. “Comparing the Attitudes of Local Residents, Planners, and Developers About Preserving Rural Character in New England.” Landscape and Urban Planning 75 (1): 5–22. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serrano Giné, D., M. Pérez Albert, and A. Palacio Buendía. 2021. “Aesthetic Assessment of the Landscape Using Psychophysical and Psychological Models: Comparative Analysis in a Protected Natural Area.” Landscape and Urban Planning 214: 104197. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sevenant, M., and M. Antrop. 2009. “Cognitive Attributes and Aesthetic Preferences in Assessment and Differentiation of Landscapes.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (9): 2889–2899. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sklenicka, P., and K. Molnarova. 2010. “Visual Perception of Habitats Adopted for Post-Mining Landscape Rehabilitation.” Environmental Management 46 (3): 424–435. doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9513-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strumse, E. 1996. “Demographic Differences in the Visual Preferences for Agrarian Landscapes in Western Norway.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 16 (1): 17–31. doi:10.1006/jevp.1996.0002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svobodova, K., P. Sklenicka, K. Molnarova, and M. Salek. 2012. “Visual Preferences for Physical Attributes of Mining and Post-Mining Landscapes with Respect to the Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents.” Ecological Engineering 43: 34–44. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.08.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svobodova, K., P. Sklenicka, K. Molnarova, and J. Vojar. 2014. “Does the Composition of Landscape Photographs Affect Visual Preferences? The Rule of the Golden Section and the Position of the Horizon.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 38: 143–152. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svobodova, K., P. Sklenicka, and J. Vojar. 2015. “How Does the Representation Rate of Features in a Landscape Affect Visual Preferences? A Case Study from a Post-Mining Landscape.” International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 29 (4): 266–276. doi:10.1080/17480930.2013.873258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swanwick, C. 2009. “Society's Attitudes to and Preferences for Land and Landscape.” Land Use Policy 26: S62–S75. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tempesta, T. 2010. “The Perception of Agrarian Historical Landscapes: A Study of the Veneto Plain in Italy.” Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (4): 258–272. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, C., P. Aspinall, and A. Montarzino. 2008. “The Childhood Factor.” Environment and Behavior 40 (1): 111–143. doi:10.1177/0013916507300119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tips, W., and T. Savasdisara. 1986. “The Influence of the Socio-Economic Background of Subjects on Their Landscape Preference Evaluation.” Landscape and Urban Planning 13: 225–230. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(86)90036-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Berg, A., and S. Koole. 2006. “New Wilderness in the Netherlands: An Investigation of Visual Preferences for Nature Development Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning 78 (4): 362–372. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Berg, A., S. Koole, and N. van der Wulp. 2003. “Environmental Preference and Restoration: (how) are They Related?” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2): 135–146. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Berg, A., C. Vlek, and J. Coeterier. 1998. “Group Differences in the Aesthetic Evaluation of Nature Development Plans: A Multilevel Approach.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 18 (2): 141–157. doi:10.1006/jevp.1998.0080.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zanten, B., P. Verburg, M. Koetse, and P. van Beukering. 2014. “Preferences for European Agrarian Landscapes: A Meta-Analysis of Case Studies.” Landscape and Urban Planning 132: 89–101. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velarde, M., G. Fry, and M. Tveit. 2007. “Health Effects of Viewing Landscapes – Landscape Types in Environmental Psychology.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6 (4): 199–212. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.001.
   Google Scholar
• Virden, R. 1990. “A Comparison Study of Wilderness Users and Nonusers: Implications for Managers and Policymakers.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 8 (3): 13–24.
   Google Scholar
• Vizayakumar, K., and P. Mohapatra. 1992. “Environmental Impact Analysis of a Coalfield.” Journal of Environmental Management 34 (2): 79–103. doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(06)80016-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, R., J. Zhao, and Z. Liu. 2016. “Consensus in Visual Preferences: The Effects of Aesthetic Quality and Landscape Types.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 20: 210–217. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, W., J. Zhao, Y. Huang, and B. Hu. 2018. “Design Intensities in Relation to Visual Aesthetic Preference.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34: 305–310. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, K. 1995. “Cultural Variations in Landscape Preference: Comparisons among Chinese sub-Groups and Western Design Experts.” Landscape and Urban Planning 32 (2): 107–126. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, J., P. Liu, C. Li, Y. Wang, L. Guo, G. Jiang, and W. Zhai. 2017. “LMM5.1 and LMM5.4, two Eukaryotic Translation Elongation Factor 1A-Like Gene Family Members, Negatively Affect Cell Death and Disease Resistance in Rice.” Journal of Genetics and Genomics 44 (2): 107–118. doi:10.1016/j.jgg.2016.12.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zube, E., D. Pitt, and G. Evans. 1983. “A Lifespan Developmental Study of Landscape Assessment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 3 (2): 115–128. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80151-3.
   Google Scholar
• Zube, E., J. Sell, and J. Taylor. 1982. “Landscape Perception: Research, Application and Theory.” Landscape Planning 9 (1): 1–33. doi:10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar