The relationship of visual preference for Chinese traditional village landscape with perceived values and functions
List of Authors
  • Nian Long Liang , Suhardi Maulan

Keyword
  • local resident, village landscape, values and functions, visual preference

Abstract
  • The sustainable development of traditional village landscape is not only crucial to the inheritance of China's millennium farming culture, but also indicators to the success or China's rural revitalization strategy. However, the policy and strategy for traditional village policy development is top-down approach in nature and it is argued that the development policies have not been effectively implemented resulted to the Chinese traditional villages undergone extraordinary changes. The reason for this phenomenon may be due to the situation that the policy is formulated without taking into consideration of local residents’ needs. Thus, this study intent to explored the relationship between local residents' perceived values and functions and their visual preferences for traditional village landscapes, in order to guide planners and decision-makers for more sustainable development policies and strategies which is consistent with local residents. The survey results of 400 numbers of participants at Guilin for visual preferences show that the local residents mostly prefer the mixed village landscape on the premises of retaining the traditional characteristics of the traditional elements but at the same time able to integrate the needs for modern living style. For the local residents' recognition of the traditional village landscape values and functions, the results also show that the local residents have the highest agreement on the ecological functions of traditional village landscapes. However, local residents have the lowest agreement on the economic value of traditional village landscapes. It is also found that perceived ecology function have the greatest effect on visual preferences for mixed style. Based on the findings, it is suggested that the principle of ecological priority rather than excessive development should be followed in the conservation and development of traditional village landscapes which emphasized on the combination of traditional and modern elements to meet people's needs for high-quality life.

Reference
  • 1. Hu, Y., Chen, S., Cao, W., & Cao. C.Z. (2014).The concept and cultural connotation of traditional villages. Urban Development Research, 21(1), 10–13.

    2. Tu,L., Zhao,J.P.,& Zhang,C. R. (2016).On the theoretical basis of traditional village protection. Urban Development Research, 23(10), 118–124.

    3. Chen, Z. X. (2017).Protection and development of traditional villages from the perspective of ecological civilization. Chinese Ecological Civilization, (4), 6–8.

    4. Wang, X. M. (2012). Practice and thinking of traditional village value identification and holistic protection. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities, 2, 156–160.

    5. Chen, R. X. (2017).Study on the Landscape Characteristics of Traditional Villages in Southern Shanxi.(Unpublished master's dissertation). Changan University, China.

    6. Yang, D. (2017).Research on the Homogeneity of Rural Landscape Tourism under Regional Culture. (Unpublished master's dissertation).Northwest A&F University,Shanxi,China.

    7. Yuan, Y. (2014). Research on the Protection and Regeneration of Traditional Villages and Towns Based on Organicity.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation).South China University of Technology,Guangdong,China.

    8. Vos, W., & Meekes, H. (1999). Trends in European cultural landscape development: Perspectives for a sustainable future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 46(1–3),3–14.

    9. Jia, Y.Y., Kang, Y.W.,& Zhou, H. W. (2016).The tourism preference for traditional villages in the central region of China. Journal of Henan Polytechnic University,17(3),319–326.

    10. Jones, M. (2007). The European landscape convention and the question of public participation. Landscape Research,32(5),613–633.

    11. Valbuena, D., Verburg, P. H., Veldkamp, A., Bregt, A. K., & Ligtenberg, A. (2010). Effects of farmers’ decisions on the landscape structure of a Dutch rural region: An agent-based approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(2), 98–110.

    12. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban form: Towards a Man-Environment Approach to Urban form and Design. Warsaw: Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data.

    13. Kaplan, S. (1992). Perception and landscape: conceptions and misconceptions. Environmental Aesthetics,45–55.

    14. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1982). Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. Ann Arbor: Ulrichs Bookstore.

    15. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. In New York: Cambridge University Press.

    16. Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Association between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(1), 1–11.

    17. De Groot, W. T., & Van Den Born, R. J. G. (2003). Visions of nature and landscape type preferences: An exploration in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(3), 127–138.

    18. Suhardi, M. (2006). A Perceptual Study of Wetlands: Implications for Wetland Restoration in the Urban Areas in Malaysia. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Virginia Tech, USA.

    19. Plieninger, T., Kizos, T., Bieling, C., Dû-Blayo, L. Le, Budniok, M. A., Bürgi, M., … Verburg, P. H. (2015). Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: Recent progress in european landscape research. Ecology and Society, 20(2).

    20. Rachael, C. (2013).Sustainable landscape planning the reconnection agenda. Australian Planner, 51(1), 91-92.

    21. Plieninger,T., & Bieling,C. (2012). Resilience and the cultural landscape: understanding and managing change in human-shaped environments. Cambridge University Press.

    22. Widgren, M. (2004).Can landscapes be read? European Rural Landscapes: Persistence and Change in a Globalising Environment. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,455-465.

    23. Howard, P., Thompson, I., & Waterton, E. (2018). The Routledge companion to landscape studies (2th ed.). Routledge.

    24. Termorshuizen, J. W., & Opdam, P. (2009). Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecology, 24(8), 1037–1052.

    25. Mitra, A., & Lankford, S. (1999). Research methods in park, recreation, and leisure services. Champaign, IL: Sagamore, Vol. 8, p. 334. Retrieved from.

    26. Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. Behavior and the Natural Environment, 39–84.

    27. Cesare, B. (1963). Theory of Restoration. Italy: Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi Press.

    28. Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., & Vogl, C. R. (2014).Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: an empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics, 105, 19–30.