Visual Landscape Assessment for Development Landscape Structure: Case study at Taiping, Perak

Authors

  • Mohd Zulhaili Teh
  • Noorsazwan Ahmad Pugi
  • Norhafizah Abdul Rahman

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v2i5.698

Abstract

The landscape is an important national resource 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. Ensuring the opportunity taken during district planning processes is important.

Keywords: Landscape character assessment, visual landscape, landscape structure.

ISSN: 2398-4287© 2017. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open access article under the CC BYNC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.

References

A. Lausch, F. Herzog. (2002). Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: issues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecol. Indic., 2 (1), pp. 3–15

Abrahamsson, K. V. (1999). Landscapes Lost and Gained: On Changes in Semiotic Resources. Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 51-61.

Allain. S,, Plumecocq. G, Leenhardt. D, (2017). How Do Multi-criteria Assessments Address Landscape-level Problems? A Review of Studies and Practices. Ecological Economics, Volume 136, Pages 282–295.

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 trans-regional integration, applied on the federal state of Belgium. Landscape and Urban Planning. 91, Issue 3, 160–170.

Bastian, O. (2000). Landscape classification in Saxony (Germany)—A tool for holistic regional planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 50, 145–155.

Bastian, O. , RoÈder, M. (1998). Assessment of landscape change by land evaluation of past and present situation. Landscape and Urban Planning 41, 171-182.

Brabyn, L. (2005). Solutions for characterising natural landscapes in New Zealand using geographical information systems, Journal of Environmental Management, 76, 23-34.

Brabyn, L. (2009). Classifying landscape character, Landscape Research, 34(3), 299- 321.

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.

Countryside Council for Wales. (2001). Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment. University College Dublin : Maritime Ireland/Wales Interreg, Report No. 5.

Devon County Council and Steve Church. (2002). The Devon Landscape – An appraisal of Devon’s Landscape at the beginning of the 21st Century, Devon Books.

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.

F. Weyland, P. Laterra. (2014) Recreation potential assessment at large spatial scales: a method based in the ecosystem services approach and landscape metrics. Ecol. Indic., 39, pp. 34–43.

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.

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.

Jessel, B. (2006). Elements, characteristics and character – Information functions of landscapes in terms of indicators. Ecological Indicators 6, 153–167.

Kim, K.H. , Pauleitb, S. (2007). Landscape character, biodiversity and land use planning: The case of Kwangju City Region, South Korea, Land Use Policy 24, 264–274.

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.

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.

Swanwick, C. (2002). Landscape Character Assessment. Guidance for England and Scotland, Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage publication.

Swanwick, C. (2004). The assessment of countryside and landscape character in England: an overview. In: Bishop, K., Phillips, A. (Eds.), Countryside Planning.

Trop. T (2017). From knowledge to action: Bridging the gaps toward effective incorporation of Landscape Character Assessment approach in land-use planning and management in Israel. Land Use Policy. Volume 61, Pages 220–230

Published

2017-03-19

How to Cite

Teh, M. Z., Ahmad Pugi, N., & Abdul Rahman, N. (2017). Visual Landscape Assessment for Development Landscape Structure: Case study at Taiping, Perak. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 2(5), 231-238. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v2i5.698

Most read articles by the same author(s)