Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2017, 65(5), 1557-1565 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201765051557

The Perception of the Urbanized Areas in Case Study of the Town Rosice

Helena Lorencová, Marcela Gotzmannová
Department of Environmentalistic and Natural Resouces; Faculty of Regional Development and International Studies, Mendel University in Brno, Tř. Generála Píky 2005/7, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic

This article deals with how the residents of the town Rosice perceive the surrounding landscape in aesthetic terms, how it affects them and which of the landscape components they find the most valuable and necessary to preserve for the next generations. This article briefly describes the essential characteristics as well as the landscape composition of the area in question. It summarizes the results of a sociological survey which was carried out in April 2015. The majority of respondents considered the town of Rosice to be a good place to liveand agreed that what they liked most were visual percepts of the area and the sites where panoramic views could be enjoyed. Those components which the residents of Rosice wished to preserve in the town of Rosice for the next generations is Chateau Rosice, Nejsvětější Trojice (the Holy Trinity) chapel, the Stone bridge, St. Martin's church, and the way of the Cross leading to the Holy Trinity chapel. The natural components that the respondents frequently mentioned included Rosická Obora (deer-park) wooded land, the park and garden adjacent to the Chateau, the way of the Cross lined with linden trees leading to the Holy Trinity chapel, and the river Bobrava. One of the most significant problems and threats to the countryside is, according to many respondents, the usurpation of land in the form of residential and commercial development.

Keywords: landscape, landscape elements, landscape perception
Grants and funding:

This study was supported by the Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Regional Development and International Studies MENDELU in Brno No. 9/2015and No. 21/2017.

Published: October 31, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Lorencová, H., & Gotzmannová, M. (2017). The Perception of the Urbanized Areas in Case Study of the Town Rosice. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 65(5), 1557-1565. doi: 10.11118/actaun201765051557
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ANTROP, M. 2000. Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landscape Ecology, 15(3): 257 - 270. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008151109252 Go to original source...
    2. ANTROP, M. 2004. Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 67(1 - 4): 9 - 26. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00026-4 Go to original source...
    3. APPLETON, J. 1975. The Experience of Landscape. London: Wiley.
    4. ARNBERGER, A. and EDER, R. 2012. The influence of Green Space on Community Attachment of Urban and Sunurban Residents. Urban Forestry&Urban Greening, 11(1): 41 - 49. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.003 Go to original source...
    5. ARRIAZA, M., CANAS-ORTEGA, J. F., CANAS-MADUENO, J. A. et.al. 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69: 115 - 125. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029 Go to original source...
    6. BARČÁKOVÁ, I. 2001. Prístupy k hodnoteniu estetickej (vizuálnej) kvality krajiny. Geografický časopis, 53(4): 343 - 356.
    7. BUHYOFF, G. J., WELLMAN, J. D., HARVEY, H. and FRASER, R. A. 1978. Landscape architects' interpretations of people's landscape preferences. Journal Environmental Management, 6: 255 - 262.
    8. BULUT, Z. and YILMAZ, H. 2009. Determination of waterscape beauties through visual quality assessment method. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 154(1 - 4): 459 - 468. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-008-0412-5 Go to original source...
    9. CULEK, M. (Ed.) 1996. Biogeografické členění České republiky. I. díl. Praha: Enigma.
    10. DEARDEN, P. 1988. Landscape aesthetics, tourism and landscape management in British Columbia. In: MOSS, M. R. (Ed.) Landscape ecology and management. Proceeding of the 1st symposium of the Canadian Society for Landscape Ecology and Management. Guelph (Polyscience Publication), pp. 183 - 190.
    11. DRDOŠ, J. 1995. Krajinný obraz a jeho hodnotenie. Životné prostredie, 29(4): 202 - 205.
    12. FORMAN, R. T. T. and GORDON, M. 1993. Krajinná ekologie. Praha: Academia.
    13. INGOLD, T. (byl inhold) 2002. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London and New York: Taylor & Francis. Go to original source...
    14. KAPLAN, R. and KAPLAN, S. 1978. Humanscape: environments for people. Duxbury Press.
    15. KAPLAN, R. and KAPLAN, S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A phychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    16. KAYMAZ, I. C. 2012. Landscape Perception. In: OZYAVUZ, M. (Ed.) Landscape Planning. InTech.
    17. KEISTERI, T. 1990. The study of changes in cultural landscapes. Fenia, 168(1): 31 - 115.
    18. LARGE, E. 1990. Vista management in Acadia National Park. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19(4), 353 - 376. Go to original source...
    19. LÖW, J. and MÍCHAL, I. 2003. Krajinný ráz. Kostelec nad Černými lesy: Lesnická práce.
    20. LYONS, E. 1983. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environmental and Behavior. Sage Publications, 15(4): 487 - 511. DOI: 10.1177/0013916583154005 Go to original source...
    21. MEINIG, D. W. 1979. The beholding eye: ten versions of the same scene. In: MEINIG, D. W. and BRINCKERHOFF, J. (Eds.) The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 33 - 48. Go to original source...
    22. MÍCHAL, I. 1997. Praktické rámce hodnocení krajinného rázu. II. Estetické hodnocení. Ochrana přírody, ročník 52. Praha: Environs, Agentura ochrany přírody a krajiny.
    23. MISGAV, A. 2000. Visual preference of the public for vegetation groups in Israel. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(1): 143 - 159. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00038-4 Go to original source...
    24. OŤAHEĽ, J. 1994. Visual landscape perception research for the environmental planning. Geographia Slovaca, 6: 97 - 103.
    25. PÁSKOVÁ, M. and ZELENKA, J. 2008. Výzkum percepce krajiny. In: ZELENKA, J. (Ed.) Percepce krajiny a genius loci. Hradec Králové: Gaudeamus.
    26. PORTEROUS, J. D. 1982. Urban environmental aesthetics. Western Geographical Series, vol. 20. University of Victoria, pp. 67 - 95.
    27. RADVÁNI, P. 1988. Teoretické a metodologické východiská výskumu obrazu mesta. In: BEZÁK, A. (Ed.) Nové trendy v geografii: Zborník referátov z III. teoretickometodologickej konferencie Slovenskej geografickej spolocnosti. Pieštany 24. - 26.10.1988. Bratislava: SGS, pp. 43 - 48.
    28. SAARINEN, T. F. 1976. Environmental planning: perception and behavior. Boston, Massachussetts: Houghton Mifflin Company.
    29. SILVERMAN, I. and EALS, M. 1992. Sex differences in spatial abilities: evolutionary theory and data. In: BARKOW, J. H., COSMIDES, L. and TOOBY, J. (Eds.). The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 533-549.
    30. SNACKEN, F., ANTROP, M. 1983. Structure and dynamics of landscape systems. In: DRDOŠ, J. (Ed.) Landscape synthesis. Geoecological foundations of the complex landscape management. Bratislava: Veda, pp. 10 - 30.
    31. SOINI, K., VAARALA, H. and POUTA, E. 2012. Residents' sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural-urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1): 124 - 134. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002 Go to original source...
    32. SPESP. 2000. Study Programme on European Spatial Planning (SPESP). Final Report, 31 March 2000. [Online]. Available at: http://www.mcrit.com/SPESP/SPESP_REPORT/SPESPDOCA/chapter%201%20-%20april.pdf [Accessed: 2017, January 15].
    33. STRUMSE, E. 1996. Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16: 17 - 31. DOI: 10.1006/jevp.1996.0002 Go to original source...
    34. VAN DEN BERG, A. and VAN WINSUM-WESTRA, M. 2010. Manicured, romantic or wild? The relation between the need for structure and preferences for garden styles. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 9(3): 179 - 186. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2010.01.006 Go to original source...
    35. VAN EETVELDE, V. and ANTROP, M. 2009. Indicators for assessing changing landscape character of cultural landscapes in Flanders (Belgium). Land Use Policy, 26(4): 901 - 910. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.11.001 Go to original source...
    36. VAN HEIJGEN, E. 2013. Human Landscape Perception. Report on understanding human landscape perception and how to integrate and implement this in current policy strategies. AONB High Weald Unit UK.
    37. VOREL, I., BUKÁČEK, R., MATĚJKA, P., CULEK, M. and SKLENIČKA, P. 2006. Metodický postup posouzení vlivu navrhované stavby, činnosti nebo změny využití území na krajinný ráz. Praha: ČVUT.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content