Landscape-preference theories such as prospect-refuge theory and Kaplan and Kaplan's landscape-preference matrix and theories of visual perception propose that the physical structure of the landscape has a direct psychological effect on people due to evolved sensitivity to particular defining characteristics. Efforts to identify consistent quantitative relationships between metrics of these characteristics and human preference have had some success. However, the field has also faced some criticisms due to low explanatory power in the results reducing confidence that relationships found can be applied to other contexts. In this paper we argue that dependence on generalised planar maps for the derivation of the metrics but on viewpoint-specific perspective photographs for the preference data is a potential cause of low explanatory power. How viewpoint change may affect scene characteristics needs to be better understood if representative viewpoints are to be chosen to allow results which are general to an area, in particular the difference between discreet (topological) changes and continuous changes. This paper presents the results of an experiment to test whether the topological complexity of a view, as measured by the Euler character of the horizon graph, has perceptual significance. We investigate if images with higher horizon-graph complexity were considered more interesting than those with lower graph complexity via a forced-choice Internet survey.
AaldersI HOdeAAitkenheadMHagerhallCAnderssonL, 2008, “Fixed or flexible land cover classification for the analysis of landscape functionality?”, in Proceedings IP SENSOR Conference: Impact Assessment of Land Use Change—Multifunctional Land Use, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany, http://www.hutton.ac.uk/webfm_send/578
2.
AntropMVan EetveldeV, 2000, “Holistic aspects of suburban landscapes: Visual image interpretation and landscape metrics”Landscape and Urban Planning5043–58
3.
AppletonJ, 1996The Experience of Landscape2nd edition (John Wiley, New York)
4.
BellS, 1998Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process (E & FN Spon, London)
5.
BerlyneD E, 1974, “The new experimental aesthetics”, in Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps Towards an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation Ed. BerlyneD E, (Hemisphere, Washington, DC) pp 259–278
6.
BishopI JWherrettJMillerD R, 2000, “Using image depth variables as predictors of visual quality”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27865–875
7.
DayH, 1987, “Evaluation of subjective complexity, pleasingness, and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity”Perception and Psychophysics2281–286
8.
DramstadWSundli-TveitMFjellstadW JFryG L A, 2006, “Relationships between visual landcape preferences and map based indicators of landscape structure”Landscape and Urban Planning78456–474
9.
GerminoMReinersWBlaskoBMcLeodDBastianC, 2001, “Estimating visual properties of rocky mountain landscapes using GIS”Landscape and Urban Planning5371–83
HoggD C, 1993, “Shape in machine vision”Image and Vision Computing11309–316
13.
JorgensenAHitchmoughJCalvertT, 2002, “Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference”Landscape and Urban Planning60135–150
14.
KaplanSKaplanR, 1982Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World (Praeger, New York)
15.
KaplanRKaplanS, 1989The Experience of Nature. A Psychological Perspective (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
16.
KarmanovD, 2008, “Research methods in landscape perception and experience”, in Landscape Leisure and Tourism Eds de HaanHvan der DuimR, (Eburon, Delft) pp 17–30
17.
KimiaB, 2004, “On the role medial geometry in human vision”Journal of Physiology-Paris97155–190
18.
KinseyC.1991Topology of Surfaces (Springer, New York)
19.
LothianA, 1999, “Landscape and the philosophy of aethetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?”Landscape and Urban Planning44177–198
20.
LucasO, 1991The Design of Forest Landscapes (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
21.
McGarigalKCushmanS ANeelM CEneE, 2002FRAGSTATS v3: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
22.
MarkD MEgenhoferM J, 1994, “Calibrating the meanings of spatial predicates from natural language: Line-region relations”, in Proceedings, Spatial Data Handling 1994, volume 1 pp 538–553, http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/∼dmark/SDH94.pdf
MarrD, 1982Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information (W H Freeman, San Francisco, LA)
26.
Martinez-FaleroEGonzalez-AlonsoS E, 1995Quantitative Techniques in Landscape Planning (Lewis, New York)
27.
MundyJ LZissermanAForsythD, (Eds) 1994Applications of Invariance in Computer Vision: Proceedings of the Second Joint European—US Workshop, Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal, October 9–14 1993, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 825 (Springer, Berlin)
28.
NordhHHartigTHagerhallC MFryG, 2009, “Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration”Urban Forestry and Urban Greening8225–235
29.
OdeÅFryGTveitM SMessagerPMillerD, 2009, “Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference”Journal of Environmental Management90375–383
30.
OdeÅHagerhallCSangN, 2010, “Analysing visual complexity: Theory and application”Landscape Research35111–131
31.
PalmerJ F, 2004, “Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape”Landscape and Urban Planning69201–218
32.
PlantingaHDyerC, 1990, “Visibility occlusion and the aspect graph”International Journal of Computer Vision5136–160
33.
SangN, 2011Visual Topology in SDI: A Data Structure for Modelling Landscape Perception PhD thesis, Department of Computing and Mathematics, University of Glamorgan
34.
SangNOdeÅMillerD, 2008, “Landscape metrics and visual topology in the analysis of landscape preference”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design35504–520
35.
SchattschneiderDEmmerM, (Eds), 2003M. C. Escher's Legacy: A Centennial Celebration (Springer, New York)
36.
SevenantMAntropM, 2010, “The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference”Land Use Policy27827–842
37.
TarrMKriegmanD, 2001, “What defines a view?”Vision Research411981–2004
38.
IvarssonC TenngartHagerhallC M, 2008, “The perceived restorativeness of gardens—assessing the restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type”Urban Forestry and Urban Greening7107–118
39.
TveitMOdeÅFryG, 2006, “Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character”Landscape Research31229–255
40.
VanderhaegenMMuroE, 2005, “Contribution of a European spatial data infrastructure to the effectiveness of EIA and SEA studies”Environmental Impact Assessment Review25(2) 123–142
41.
VelardeMFryGTveitM, 2007, “Health effects of viewing landscapes—landscape types in environmental psychology”Urban Forestry and Urban Greening6199–212
42.
WinkelGSaegertSEvansG W, 2009, “An ecological perspective on theory, methods, and analysis in environmental psychology: Advances and challenges”Journal of Environmental Psychology29318–328
