Visual Landscape Assessment : A method for analysing and planning for landscape structure
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The landscape is an important national resource an outstanding natural and cultural inheritance which is widely appreciated. This study attempts to evaluate visual landscape of Taiping District in relations to the larger landscape scale in Peninsular Malaysia. A Landscape Character Assessment was conducted on the visual landscape taken for several points in Taiping, Perak and surrounding area to see changes in the landscape. The aim of this study is to provide a visual structure for landscape classification of the Taiping District area that will contribute to the decision making in development and management in Malaysia. It is important to ensure the opportunity was taken during district planning processes.
Metrics
Article Details
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Mohd Zulhaili Teh, Marina Abdullah, Noorsazwan Ahmad Pugi, Norhafizah Abdul Rahman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Abrahamsson, K. V. (1999). Landscapes Lost and Gained: On Changes in Semiotic Resources. Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 51-61.
Antrop, M. (2006). From holistic landscape synthesis to trans-disciplinary landscape management. Chapter 3 in “From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application” A. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry and P. Opdam (eds). Springer.
Antrop, M. , Eetvelde, V. V. (2009). A stepwise multi-scaled landscape typology and characterisation for transregional integration, applied on the federal state of Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning. 91, Issue 3, 160–170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.008
Bastian, O. (2000). Landscape classification in Saxony (Germany)—A tool for holistic regional planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 50, 145–155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00086-4
Bastian, O. , RoÈder, M. (1998). Assessment of landscape change by land evaluation of past and present situation. Landscape and Urban Planning 41, 171-182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00056-5
Brabyn, L. (2005). Solutions for characterising natural landscapes in New Zealand using geographical information systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 76, 23-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.01.005
Brabyn, L. (2009). Classifying landscape character. Landscape Research, 34(3), 299- 321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390802371202
Bryant, M. (2001). Illuminating the Position of Landscape Planning Today: Decline and Potential Rebirth. Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning. Amherst. University of Massachusetts. Unpublished PhD: pp. 187.
Countryside Agency (2005). Report: A character assessment of Oxford in its landscape setting. Countryside Agency Publications, Wetherby.Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage.
Countryside Agency. (1999). Countryside Character Volume 8. South West, The Countryside Agency.
Dikau, R., Brabb, E.E., Mark, R.M. (1989). Landform classification of New Mexico by computer, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File report, 91-634.
European Landscape Convention. (2000). The European Landscape Convention, European Treaty, Series No. 176.
European Landscape Convention. (2007). Report: The European Landscape Convention Framework of Implementation in England.
Fáilte Ireland (2007), Feasibility Study to Identify Scenic Landscapes in Ireland, National Tourism Development Authority. MosArt. Local authority survey results and focus group meetings findings.
Hawkins, V. , Selman, P. (2002). Landscape scale planning: exploring alternative land use scenarios. Landscape and Urban Planning60(4), 211–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00056-7
Jellema, A. , Jeroen, C.J. , Groot, B.,Walter, A.H. (2009). Designing a hedgerow network in a multifunctional agricultural landscape: Balancing trade-offs among ecological quality, landscape character and implementation costs. European Journal of Agronomy, 112–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.07.002
Jessel, B. (2006). Elements, characteristics and character – Information functions of landscapes in terms of indicators. Ecological Indicators 6, 153–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.009
Kim, K.H. , Pauleitb, S. (2005). Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: The case of Kwangju City Region, South Korea, Land Use Policy 24, 264–274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.12.001
Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. Countryside Agency and Scottish. (2001). Natural Heritage, Wetherby. Environment and Heritage Service.
Makhzoumi, J., Pungetti, G. (1999). Ecological Landscape Design and Planning. London : E & FN SPON.
Moore-Colyer, R. , & Scott, A. (2005). What kind of landscape do we want? Past, present and future perspectives. Landscape Research 30(4), 501–523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390500273254
Mücher, C.A. (2003). Identification and Characterisation of Environments and Landscapes in Europe. Wageningen : Alterra rapport 832, Alterra.
Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Messager, O., Miller, D. (2007). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference, Journal of Environmental Management, 1-9.
Samat, N. (2009) Integrating GIS and CA-MARKOV model in evaluating urban spatial growth. Malaysian Journal of Environmental Management, 10 (1), 83-99.
Selman, P. (2000). Landscape sustainability at the national and regional scales. In: Benson, J.F., Roe, M.H. (Eds.), Landscape and Sustainability. London : Spon Press.