Landscape and Perception: A systematic review




Perception, Heritage factors, Infrastructure, Landscape


Accurate knowledge of human perception can help designers to create desirable spaces. An increase in publications from 2000 to 2020 demonstrates that studies in human perception of the landscape are evolving. This systematic review aims to comprehensively review existing knowledge and published papers on human perception concerning landscape to promote these approaches in this field for future research. Therefore, a systematic literature search analysis of 255 articles was drawn from four databases: Scopus, ScienceDirect (Elsevier), SAGE, and Taylor & Francis. Results show that the previous concerns are categorized into four main categories: human, heritage, infrastructure, and landscape characteristics. The results of this paper suggest that in future studies researchers should study the heritage and infrastructures factors and evaluate the potential and effects of these issues in the process of human-environmental interactions.


Alexander, C., 1979. The timeless way of building. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bentley, I., 1985. Responsive environments: A manual for designers. Routledge.

Bjerke, T., Østdahl, T., Thrane, C., Strumse, E., 2006. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 5(1), 35-44. DOI:

Bowen, M.E., McAlpine, C.A., House, A.P., Smith, G.C., 2007. Regrowth forests on abandoned agricultural land: a review of their habitat values for recovering forest fauna. Biological Conservation 140(3-4), 273-296. DOI:

Brown, G., Montag, J.M., Lyon, K., 2012. Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Society & natural resources 25(7), 633-651. DOI:

Chan, K.M., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological economics 74, 8-18. DOI:

Cheng, A.S., Kruger, L.E., Daniels, S.E., 2003. “ Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research Agenda. Society & Natural Resources 16(2), 87-104. DOI:

Delicado, A., Figueiredo, E., Silva, L., 2016. Community perceptions of renewable energies in Portugal: Impacts on environment, landscape and local development. Energy Research & Social Science 13, 84-93. DOI:

Farahani, L.M., Maller, C.J., 2018. Perceptions and Preferences of Urban Greenspaces: A Literature Review and Framework for Policy and Practice. Landscape Online 61. DOI:

Filova, L., Vojar, J., Svobodova, K., Sklenicka, P., 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:

Folke, C., Colding, J., Berkes, F., 2003. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change 91, 352-387. DOI:

Foster, R.H., McBeth, M.K., 1996. Urban-rural influences in US environmental and economic development policy. Journal of Rural Studies 12(4), 387-397. DOI:

Fry, G., Tveit, M.S., Ode, Å., Velarde, M.D., 2009. The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators. Ecological Indicators 9(5), 933-947. DOI:

Gerstenberg, T., Hofmann, M., 2016. Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 15, 103-111. DOI:

Gibson, A.C., Nobel, P.S., 1986. The cactus primer. Harvard University Press. DOI:

Guagnano, G.A., Markee, N., 1995. Regional differences in the sociodemographic determinants of environmental concern. Population and environment 17, 135-149. DOI:

Henle, K., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Cobb, P., Firbank, L., Kull, T., McCracken, D., Moritz, R.F., Niemelä, J., Rebane, M., 2008. Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe–A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 124(1-2), 60-71. DOI:

Hofmann, M., Westermann, J.R., Kowarik, I., Van der Meer, E., 2012. Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11(3), 303-312. DOI:

Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J., Gómez, A.P., 2006. Questions of perception: phenomenology of architecture. William K Stout Pub.

Howell, S.E., Laska, S.B., 1992. The changing face of the environmental coalition: A research note. Environment and behavior 24(1), 134-144. DOI:

Huang, A.S.-H., Lin, Y.-J., 2020. The effect of landscape colour, complexity and preference on viewing behaviour. Landscape Research 45(2), 214-227. DOI:

Infrastructure, E.G., 2013. Enhancing Europe’s natural capital. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium.

Jones, R.E., Dunlap, R.E., 1992. The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology 57(1), 28-47. DOI:

Kamičaitytė, J., Gražulevičiūtė-Vileniškė, I., Gadal, S., 2020. Role of Multicultural Identity in Landscape Perception and Methodological Possibilities of Its Interdisciplinary Analysis. Landscape Architecture and Art 15, 65-74. DOI:

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press.

Kiper, T., Korkut, A., Topal, T., 2017. Visual landscape quality assessment: Kıyıköy example. Kahramanmaraș Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi 20(3), 258-269.

Kitchenham, B., 2004. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele UK Keele Univ. 33, 1-26.

Kljenak, M., Kurdija, S., POLIČ, M., GOLOBIČ, M., 2013. Experiencing Dalmatia: What constitutes the sensory landscape identity of the Dalmatia region? Društvena istraživanja: časopis za opća društvena pitanja 22(2), 277-302. DOI:

Kumar, M., Kumar, P., 2008. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological economics 64(4), 808-819. DOI:

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Folke, C., Alberti, M., Redman, C.L., Schneider, S.H., Ostrom, E., Pell, A.N., Lubchenco, J., 2007. Coupled human and natural systems. AMBIO: A journal of the human environment 36(8), 639-649.[639:CHANS]2.0.CO;2 DOI:[639:CHANS]2.0.CO;2

Lothian, A., 2008. Scenic perceptions of the visual effects of wind farms on South Australian landscapes. Geographical Research 46(2), 196-207. DOI:

Lothian, A., 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning 44(4), 177-198. DOI:

Mahan, A., Mansouri, S.A., 2017. The study of “landscape” concept with an emphasis on the views of authorities of various disciplines. Bagh-e Nazar 14(47), 17-28.

Müderrisoğlu, H., Gültekin, P.G., 2015. Understanding the children’s perception and preferences on nature-based outdoor landscape. Indoor and Built Environment 24(3), 340-354. DOI:

Navarro, L.M., Pereira, H.M., 2015. Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. In Rewilding European Landscapes pp. 3-23. Springer, Cham, pp. 3-23. DOI:

Nikodemus, O., Bell, S., Grı̄ne, I., Liepiņš, I., 2005. The impact of economic, social and political factors on the landscape structure of the Vidzeme Uplands in Latvia. Landscape and Urban Planning 70(1-2), 57-67. DOI:

Nunta, J., Sahachaisaeree, N., 2012. Cultural landscape, urban settlement and dweller’s perception: a case study of a vernacular village in Northern Thailand. Procedia-Social Behavior Science 42, 153-158. DOI:

Nunta, J., Sahachaisaeree, N., 2010. Determinant of cultural heritage on the spatial setting of cultural landscape: a case study on the northern region of Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 5, 1241-1245. DOI:

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 42, 153-158.

Ode, Å., Tveit, M.S., Fry, G., 2010. Advantages of using different data sources in assessment of landscape change and its effect on visual scale. Landscape Assessment for Sustainable Planning 10(1), 24-31. DOI:

Özhanci, E., Yilmaz, H., 2017. Görsel Peyzaj Kalite Değerlendirmelerinde Kalite Göstergelerinin Mekansal Yansımaları. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 31(43), 157-173.

Pallasmaa, J., 2012. The eyes of the skin: architecture and the senses. John Wiley & Sons.

Rapoport, A., Hawkes, R., 1970. The perception of urban complexity. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 36(2), 106-111. DOI:

Raudsepp, M., 2001. Some socio-demographic and socio-psychological predictors of environmentalism. Trames 5(4), 355-368.

Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., Kalivas, T., 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological economics 68(5), 1301-1315. DOI:

Rogge, E., Nevens, F., Gulinck, H., 2007. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning 82(4), 159-174. DOI:

Rotherham, I.D., 2007. The implications of perceptions and cultural knowledge loss for the management of wooded landscapes: a UK case-study. Forest Ecology and Management 249(1-2), 100-115. DOI:

Ruskule, A., Nikodemus, O., Kasparinskis, R., Bell, S., Urtane, I., 2013. The perception of abandoned farmland by local people and experts: Landscape value and perspectives on future land use. Landscape and Urban Planning 115, 49-61. DOI:

Saffariha, M., Azarnivand, H., Zare Chahouki, M.A., Tavili, A., Nejad Ebrahimi, S., Jahani, R., Potter, D., 2021. Changes in the essential oil content and composition of Salvia limbata C.A. Mey at different growth stages and altitudes. Biomedical Chromatography 35(8), e5127. DOI:

Saffariha, M., Jahani, A., Potter, D., 2020. Seed germination prediction of Salvia limbata under ecological stresses in protected areas: an artificial intelligence modeling approach. BMC Ecology 20, 48. DOI:

Santo-Tomás Muro, R., Sáenz de Tejada Granados, C., Rodríguez Romero, E.J., 2020. Green infrastructures in the peri-urban landscape: Exploring local perception of well-being through “go-alongs” and “semi-structured interviews.” Sustainability 12(17), 6836. DOI:

Schutz, A., 1972. The phenomenology of the social world. Northwestern University Press.

Scott, D., Willits, F.K., 1994. Environmental attitudes and behavior: A Pennsylvania survey. Environment and behavior 26(2), 239-260. DOI:

Scott, M.J., Canter, D.V., 1997. Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of environmental psychology 17(4), 263-281. DOI:

Sevenant, M., Antrop, M., 2009. Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. Environmental and landscape change: Addressing an interdisciplinary agenda 90(9), 2889-2899. DOI:

Spirn, A.W., 1998. The language of landscape. Yale University Press.

Stoate, C., Baldi, A., Beja, P., Boatman, N., Herzon, I., Van Doorn, A., De Snoo, G., Rakosy, L., Ramwell, C., 2009. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe–a review. Journal of environmental management 91(1), 22-46. DOI:

Surat, H., 2017. Evaluation of urban parks for visual landscape by the landscape architecture students. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 191, 70-80.

Svobodova, K., Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K., Salek, M., 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:

Thompson, I., 2003. Ecology, community and delight: An inquiry into values in landscape architecture. Routledge.

Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J., 2007. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and urban planning, 79(1), 5-19. DOI:

Uematsu, Y., Koga, T., Mitsuhashi, H., Ushimaru, A., 2010. Abandonment and intensified use of agricultural land decrease habitats of rare herbs in semi-natural grasslands. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 135(4), 304-309. DOI:

Uzun, O., Muuml, H., 2011. Visual landscape quality in landscape planning: Examples of Kars and Ardahan cities in Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6(6), 1627-1638.

Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S.L., 2006. New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 78(4), 362-372. DOI:

Van den Berg, A.E., Vlek, C.A., Coeterier, J.F., 1998. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. Journal of environmental psychology 18(2), 141-157. DOI:

Williams, B.J., Carver, J.C., 2010. Characterizing software architecture changes: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology 52(1), 31-51. DOI:

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:

Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., Taylor, J.G., 1982. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape planning 9(1), 1-33. DOI:



Additional Files



How to Cite

Khaledi, H. J., Khakzand, M., & Faizi, M. (2022). Landscape and Perception: A systematic review. Landscape Online, 97, 1098.