Coastal Towns in Transition: Local Perceptions of Landscape Change 1402068867, 9781402068867

Citation preview

Coastal Towns in Transition: Local Perceptions of Landscape Change

Coastal Towns in Transition: Local Perceptions of Landscape Change

Raymond James Green Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning The University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria 3010 Australia

Assoc. Prof. Raymond James Green The University of Melbourne Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning Parkville VIC 3010 Australia [email protected]

Co-published by Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Dordrecht, The Netherlands and CSIRO PUBLISHING, Collingwood, Vic., Australia Sold and distributed: In the Americas, Europe and Rest of the World excluding Australia and New Zealand by Springer Science+Business Media B.V., with ISBN 978-1-4020-6886-7 springer.com In Australia and New Zealand by CSIRO PUBLISHING, with ISBN 978-0-643-09533-5 www.publish.csiro.au ISBN 978-1-4020-6886-7 e-ISBN 978-1-4020-6887-4 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6887-4 Springer Dordrecht New York Heidelberg London Library of Congress Control Number: 2009935336 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................. 1 1.1 The Plight of Coastal Towns ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Population shifts toward coastal areas ................................. 2 1.1.2 The ‘sea-change phenomenon’............................................ 3 1.1.3 Tourism ............................................................................... 4 1.1.4 Transformation in place character ....................................... 6 1.2 Community Responses ........................................................ 7 1.3 Conserving Place Character ................................................ 8 1.4 Sustainable Development .................................................. 12 Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character.................................................... 13 2.1 What Is Place Character? .................................................. 13 2.1.1 Placelessness ..................................................................... 15 2.1.2 Place attachment................................................................ 15 2.1.3 Special places .................................................................... 17 2.2 Dimensions of Place Character ......................................... 18 2.2.1 Environmental aesthetics................................................... 19 2.2.2 Natural landscapes ............................................................ 20 2.2.3 A social dimension ............................................................ 27 2.2.4 Change and a temporal dimension .................................... 28 2.2.5 Distinctiveness and uniqueness of place ........................... 30 2.2.6 Symbolic meaning............................................................. 31 2.2.7 Emotional responses to the environment .......................... 32 2.2.8 The home environment...................................................... 33

vi

Table of Contents

2.2.9 2.3

Neighborhood environments ............................................. 34 The Validity of Theoretical Propositions ........................... 35

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations............................................. 37 3.1 Perceptions of Environmental Quality .............................. 37 3.1.1 Involving the public in assessing place character ............. 38 3.1.2 Methodological approaches .............................................. 39 3.2 Assessing Perceptions of Place Character ......................... 47 3.2.1 A town’s sacred structure .................................................. 47 3.2.2 A coastal town’s ‘special’ image ....................................... 49 3.2.3 Neighborhood image congruity ........................................ 50 3.2.4 Community sense of place in the aftermath of a natural disaster ........................................................... 50 3.2.5 Community perceptions of ‘town character’ in a coastal tourist town ..................................................... 51 3.2.6 Scenic and town character assessment in a sub-tropical coastal town ............................................ 52 3.3 Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road .................... 54 3.3.1 Study area towns ............................................................... 54 3.3.2 Data collection methods .................................................... 64 3.3.3 Data analysis ..................................................................... 71 3.3.4 Respondents ...................................................................... 76 3.3.5 Assessing the methods ...................................................... 78 Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character.......................... 79 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 79 4.2 Place Character Features ................................................... 81 4.2.1 Built features rated incompatible with town character...... 88 4.2.2 Built features rated compatible with town character ......... 89 4.2.3 Natural features ............................................................... 101 4.3 Categorization of Character Features .............................. 119 4.4 Neighborhood Character ................................................. 127 4.5 Conclusions ..................................................................... 129

Table of Contents

vii

Chapter 5: Conserving Town Character ................................................ 135 5.1 Introduction ..................................................................... 135 5.2 Examples ......................................................................... 135 5.2.1 United Kingdom .............................................................. 135 5.2.2 North America and Mexico ............................................. 144 5.2.3 New Zealand ................................................................... 149 5.3 Summary ......................................................................... 149 Chapter 6: Facing Future Challenges .................................................... 151 6.1 Assessing and Managing Responses to Change.............. 151 6.1.1 Identification and assessment of town character zones ................................................................ 152 6.1.2 Monitoring town character over time .............................. 152 6.1.3 Assessing the impact of proposed changes on place character............................................................ 153 6.1.4 Assessing the effectiveness of planning controls ............ 154 6.2 Changing Place Character in the Face of Climate Change .......................................................... 155

Acknowledgements First of all, I want to express my gratitude to the members of the various Great Ocean Road communities who participated in this research. I would especially like to thank my partner, Elahna Green, a very talented photographer and landscape architect, who assisted me throughout the research by conducting field photography, helping to analyze vast amounts of data, providing insightful suggestions during interpretation of the results, preparing many of the illustrations used in this publication and generally being a wonderful companion.

The research reported in Chapters 3 and 4 was made possible through a ‘Discovery Project’ grant from the Australian Research Council entitled ‘Involving local communities in defining town character in Victorian coastal towns’ (2003–2005). The University of Melbourne provided supplementary funds for a project entitled ‘The impact of tourism development in Victorian coastal towns: A comparative analysis of resident perceptions of environmental change’. The Surf Coast Shire Council also provided support. And finally, I want to thank Dame Elisabeth Murdock who supplied funds to the Landscape Architecture program at the University of Melbourne to support research into issues relevant to the profession of landscape architecture, some of which were used for the research presented here, and for her generous contributions over the years to so many worthy causes.

Preface There is a pleasure in the pathless woods, There is a rapture on the lonely shore, There is a society, where none intrudes, By the deep sea, and music in its roar. Lord Byron – Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage

Coastal areas around the world are witnessing dramatic changes as a consequence of development associated with tourism and what, in Australia, has been referred to as the ‘sea change phenomenon’ – affluent urbanites moving to coastal areas seeking a relaxed lifestyle in scenic and natural surroundings (Burnley and Murphy 2004). In response to these changes, people living in destination communities complain that the valued ‘character’ of their towns and/or individual neighborhoods is being lost or degraded. The major catalyst for this seems to be replacement of smaller, older, traditional buildings with out of scale and standardized forms of architecture that people feel are ‘out-of-character’. In far too many instances this also results in the destruction of natural environments that is a consequence of over development, inappropriately sited buildings, planning regulations that do not adequately protect the natural environment and ill-conceived landscape design actions. The upshot of these changes is that the locally unique constellation of landscape features that have traditionally defined the character of many coastal towns is slowly, but surely, being eroded and replaced by one of global uniformity in the built environment and a degraded natural environment. This book explores how ordinary people living in small coastal towns conceptualize place-character within the context of their everyday surroundings. It does this by presenting a body of research, undertaken over a 4-year period and involving close to 2,000 respondents, that explored how people

living in several Australian coastal towns perceive the character of their towns and how recent changes are impacting on that character. Members of these various communities were involved in all stages of the research process: in helping to select landscape features they felt were important to their perceptions of local character and even in helping determine how these features would be photographically documented for use as stimuli in these studies. This approach assumes that members of the user public are the true experts when it comes to assessing such an inherently experiential phenomenon as town character, based on the fact that they are the ones who experience their local surroundings on a regular basis and will be most sensitive to environmental changes that impact on the character of these places. This is in stark contrast to the more typical approach used in conducting such ‘character studies’, which are typically based solely on the opinion of planning and design experts. In comparing the results of the research across the various study area towns, a remarkably consistent pattern was revealed in that the same types of features perceived to be important to local place-character were identified in each of the towns. The results identified definite typologies of character-defining elements. There was also a remarkable consistency in terms of how people assessed these features with respect to compatibility with the character of their towns and individual neighborhoods. Theoretical insights provided by the results on place character, sense of place and related concepts, should be of interest to scholars working in a wide range of social science, environmental management, planning and design, tourism and other relevant fields, with respect to understanding how people conceptualize the character of coastal environments. The primary aim was, however, to demonstrate the use of an innovative methodological approach for understanding community perceptions of place-character that can guide planning decision making associated with conservation of town character. These methods should be of particular interest to planners, landscape architects, architects, government decisionmakers and others who have been grappling with how to consciously manage landscape change to conserve valued expressions of local character.

xii

The book contains a total of six chapters. Chapter 1 provides a discussion about how coastal areas are changing due to a range of forces and how as a result the distinctive character that has traditionally defined many coastal towns is being eroded, often to the dismay of local residents and visitors of these places. Chapter 2 reviews the notion of place-character and associated concepts of sense of place, spirit of place, genius loci, place-attachment and place-identity from a theoretical perspective. Chapter 3 is devoted to methodological issues associated with assessing public perceptions of environmental quality and place-character and also reports on the methods used in conducting a series of studies that explored how residents and homeowners in several coastal towns located along Australia’s Great Ocean Road perceive town character and changes in local

Preface

character. Chapter 4 is devoted entirely to presenting the results of these studies. Chapter 5 gives some examples of community initiatives, land conservation groups and government planning bodies, in various places around the world, that have implemented strategies for conserving coastal town character. Chapter 6 is a discussion about strategies for monitoring town character over time, assessing community perceptions of proposed development in term of its impact on place character and a perceptually based approach for testing the effectiveness of planning controls aimed at conserving place character. This chapter ends with a discussion about future challenges facing coastal areas with respect to climate change, and implications of these changes with regard to conserving valued place character in these settings.

Chapter 1: Introduction Coastal towns located near major metropolitan centers have recently experienced an influx of people searching for a relaxed lifestyle in scenic and natural settings that coastal places can offer. This form of amenity migration, along with tourism, has resulted in the growth, and associated environmental and social changes, that many of these towns have experienced. In many instances these changes have dramatically transformed the unique character that these places possess and which form a major part of their attractiveness.

1.1 The Plight of Coastal Towns Our affinity for water in the landscape, particularly our attraction to the sea, and the resources it can offer, has drawn people to coastal areas long before we migrated out of Africa some 60,000 years ago (Marean et al. 2007). More recently, people have been flocking to coastal areas in everincreasing numbers as tourists and those wanting a change of environment and lifestyle attempting to escape the stresses associated with urban life. But this predilection for the sea often equates to increased development in the destination communities. The environmental changes associated with this development all too often threaten the very qualities that initially made these places unique and attractive. Coastal towns, due to the fact that they are often places of great natural beauty and unique cultural histories, and typically possess fragile ecosystems, are particularly susceptible to these changes. In response to these changes people living in affected communities are increasingly voicing their concern that the ‘character’ of their towns and individual neighborhoods is being eroded. But what exactly do they mean when they talk about town character and what is it that they feel is being lost? This book tries to answer these questions.

To appreciate the intense concern over the loss of place character in these settings one only needs to search the Internet using the keywords ‘coastal town character conservation’, which will identify close to half a million websites devoted to issues of coastal town character, threats to the character of coastal places, the need for conservation of character in these settings and a range of related issues. The content of these websites highlights the concerns of a wide range of people and organizations – scholars working in various social science and planning and design disciplines, governmental and non-governmental organizations, community groups and even individuals who live in, or visit, coastal places that they feel are under threat. As one might expect, a significant number of these sites are simply devoted to advertising tourism destinations or the sale of coastal property using the unique character of their locations as selling points, activities that in themselves are agents of change in these places. In the face of sometimes intense development pressures that many coastal towns in Australia, North America and Europe are experiencing, and the associated loss of locally distinctive place character that can accompany growth and development of these places, relevant government bodies, through the introduction of various forms of ‘character legislations’, have been searching for ways to conserve place features associated with the character of towns under their jurisdiction. While the residents and visitors to these places typically applaud these efforts, such legislations often fail to meet their objectives because they are seldom based on a solid understanding of exactly how people experience their surroundings, and instead tend to rely solely on the judgment of planning and design experts in determining what is most important to conserve in terms of protecting town and neighborhood character. While there is a reasonably large body of literature addressing theoretical aspects of ‘place-character’ and related concepts – sense of place, place-identity, place-attachment – limited research has focused specifically on how people actually conceptualize and experience place-character, and its transformation, in the context of small coastal towns, the aim of the research presented in this book.

2

1.1.1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Population shifts toward coastal areas

More than 60% of the world’s population, or 3.5 billion people, now live within 150 km of the coastline, crowded into just 10% of the Earth’s land surface. Much of the recent migration to the coast has been driven by the amenity value these places offer, particularly in the more developed countries. It is predicted that by 2020 approximately 75% of the world’s population will be living on or near the coast. This represents an estimated 6.4 billion people, approximately the world’s current population (Hinrichsen 1999; United Nations 2002). The planet’s coastal areas are already overdeveloped and overcrowded and if this trend continues, as it is predicted, the impacts are likely to be dramatic. We need to halt the destruction currently being done to these places and begin to restore them to a healthy condition. If we continue with business as usual the situation is likely to deteriorate rapidly, particularly once the impacts of climate change begin to be felt in these places. By 2003 over 150 million people in the Untied States, or half the country’s total population, already resided in counties bordering the coast, mostly concentrated in or near the country’s major metropolitan centers and in a relatively small area – just 17% of the total land area of the continental United States (Crosett et al. 2004). Europe has also experienced significant population growth in its coastal areas. By 2001 approximately 140 million Europeans were already living in coastal areas (defined as the area within 10 km of the coast) and on average half a million Europeans have been relocating to the coast every year since. Densities are also on average 10% higher in European coastal areas than in the inland areas. As a consequence artificial surfaces – buildings and paving – now cover large areas of coastal landscapes. Furthermore, this is particularly evident within 1 km of the coastline where it is occurring at a rate 25% faster than it is in the inland regions. In some countries the transformation in land cover has been dramatic. For example, parts of France, Spain and Italy now have built-up areas within 1 km of their coastlines that exceed 45% of the total land coverage (European Environment Agency 2006).

In Australia 85% of the country’s entire population of a little over 20 million now live within 50 km of the sea, and 20% live in smaller coastal towns and regional cities located right on the coast. Growth rates in Australian coastal towns are also significantly higher than the national average and this trend is predicted to continue into the foreseeable future. This migration to the coast began in the 1950s and 1960s, predominantly by younger people who were attracted by the sun, sand, surf and relaxed lifestyle that these places offered (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004a,b,c, cited by Gurran et al. 2005; Burnley and Murphy 2004). More recently, affluent urbanites have been buying properties in smaller coastal settlements for use as second homes, while still living more permanently in one of the country’s major metropolitan areas – Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth. Between 1996 and 2006 coastal towns in the state of Victoria added close to 150,000 people to their populations, a 15% average increase, and at least another 100,000 are predicted to move to the State’s smaller coastal communities by 2016, representing a further 9% increase (Victorian Coastal Council 2008). There are also a significant number of people who have moved to these towns yet remain in the workforce outside the towns, partially made possible by advances in information and telecommunication technology, especially the Internet, which has given people much greater ability to live and work in relatively remote areas, such as semi-rural coastal areas. While most of the new migrants to Australia’s coastal towns have been under 50 years of age, older Australians are also relocating to non-metropolitan coastal settlements in ever-increasing numbers, seeking a lifestyle change in their retirement. This trend is also predicted to increase as more ‘baby boomers’ reach retirement age (Burnley and Murphy 2004; Gurran et al. 2005; O’Connor 2001; Salt 2003; Stimson and Minnery 1998). While non-metropolitan Australian coastal communities have grown at significantly higher rates than other areas, and this trend is predicted to continue into the foreseeable future, recent events, particularly climate change, may slow down or even reverse this move to the sea. Only time

1.1 The Plight of Coastal Towns

will tell if these factors will outweigh the desire of people to relocate to coastal areas for the amenities these places offer. One thing is certain; those that have already made the sea-change move will now face a changing environment that they and the communities that they have joined will have to adapt to in the future. 1.1.2 The ‘sea-change phenomenon’ Much of the recent suburbanization occurring in smaller coastal towns in Europe, North America and Australia is a consequence of what in Australia has been called the ‘sea-change phenomenon’; migration to nonmetropolitan coastal areas by urbanites seeking a change of environment and lifestyle (Burnley and Murphy 2004; National Sea Change Taskforce 2006). Unlike other forms of migration, which are typically driven by economic opportunities and/or constraints, this form of ‘amenity migration’ is motivated principally by the prospect of a more relaxed lifestyle in attractive and natural environments and the recreational opportunities that these places can offer. In many instances what people are searching for are places that contrast with the urban environments that they are trying to escape. This was nicely portrayed in a popular Australian television series, Sea Change, which was set in the imaginary Victorian coastal town of Pearl Bay. It tells the story of Laura Gibson who: … leave[s] behind a city life of corporate deals, gourmet home delivery and a broken marriage. In front of her lies the picture prefect Pearl Bay, a position as the local magistrate, plenty of time to get to know the kids and an idyllic lifestyle.1

The central character, Laura, is typical of many people who are attracted to small coastal places like Pearl Bay, which is representative of just one of five ‘sea-change’ type settlements that have been identified by researchers at the University of Sydney (Gurran et al. 2005; p. 3): 1 From the description on the jacket of the DVD of the series ‘Sea Change’, produced by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

3

• Coastal hamlets – small, rural coastal communities, often located near protected natural areas • Coastal getaways – small-to-medium sized coastal towns within a 3-h drive of a major city and which are generally set in predominately natural areas with high ecological, scenic and recreational values • Coastal lifestyle destinations – small-to-medium sized settlements that are predominantly focused on tourism and leisure activities and which are typically located a 3-h drive or more from a major city • Coastal commuter settlements – towns located close enough to major centers of population to make commuting a feasible option • Coastal regional cities – smaller regional cities located on the coast The growth of these settlements often follows a distinct morphological pattern driven by single family and residential unit development, which is typically distributed in a linear, strip-like pattern following the coastline with properties vying for ocean views. The desire is to be located as close to the sea as possible. Property values also tend to increase the closer to the sea and land for open space is often sacrificed for development. This growth pattern also tends to impact significantly on the natural environments of these places as well as their cultural heritage and the social fabric of their communities. Environmental impacts range from degradation and fragmentation of habitat, such as coastal wetlands, introduction of exotic plant species, changes in hydrological systems and increased erosion, and a host of other environmental changes. These impacts tend to manifest somewhat differently depending on the type of destination settlement, as outlined above, and as a function of their geographic scale, physical and biological characteristics, population size and composition, distance from a major metropolitan center and a range of other factors. Community well-being and social cohesion can also be impacted as a result of frictions between the wealthy, urbanite newcomers, existing residents and tourists. In some communities, such as those in Coastal Lifestyle settlements, which rely heavily on tourism, seasonal shortages of housing availability make housing unaffordable for many of the established residents.

4

In addition, many newer residents often only reside in the communities for part of the year and either leave their houses unoccupied or become absentee landlords, particularly in places where demand for accommodation by tourists is high. These factors often equate to a loss of a sense of community for the full-time residents; as neighborhoods become filled with unoccupied dwellings social networks tend to break down. This is particularly true for families with young children in that the children often have no other neighborhood children to play with, while their parents are left without immediate neighbors to provide mutual support. As the populations of these towns grow, other social problems can also manifest, such as overcrowding and increased crime; some of the reasons that many sea changers left the city to settle in these towns in the first place. 1.1.3 Tourism Tourism is one of the largest, and by some accounts, the largest industries in the world and it is one that is steadily growing. Currently, tourism generates close to US $6 trillion in global economic activity annually, accounting for 9.4% of the world’s GDP. It also supplies 220 million jobs, or 7.6% of the world’s overall employment. This equates to 1 in every 13 jobs worldwide (World Travel and Tourism Council 2009). It is also one of Australia’s largest industries, accounting for close to 6% of its GDP. In the state of Victoria alone tourism contributes close to $11 billion to the state’s economy every year (5.3% of its GDP) and supplies 6.6% of the state’s total employment (Tourism Alliance Victoria 2007). The attraction for tourists to coastal areas is often simply the ability to have access to clean air and water, scenic landscapes and healthy recreational activities, e.g. swimming, hiking and camping. Like those making the seachange move tourists are often motivated by a desire to get away from the stresses and hectic pace of city life and experience a more relaxed, tranquil atmosphere in natural and scenic surroundings. Few tourist settings can compete with small coastal towns as places to holiday because they offer

Chapter 1: Introduction

the unique combination of surf, sand and a relaxed lifestyle that other holiday destinations simply do not have. The combination of distinctive environmental, social and cultural features, which distinguishes many smaller coastal towns, and which conveys their unique character, are often the reason tourists are attracted to these places. This form of tourism recognizes ‘that each individual locality or community has its special character [and] that particular character or identity may well constitute its major attractiveness to tourists’; what the Pacific Asia Travel Association has labeled ‘endemic tourism’ (Oelrichs and Prosser 1992; Forward). Typically, coastal beach towns that develop as a result of tourism follow a predicable pattern of growth driven by increased commercial activity associated with providing accommodation, goods and services to tourists (Butler 1980). This begins with initial involvement of ‘pioneer’ tourists in a previously non-tourist setting, generally in areas with outstanding scenic, natural or cultural resources that function as the tourist attractions. These changes follow a classic morphological pattern of growth that begins with small shops, motels, restaurants and other establishments being built to cater to tourists, which are typically concentrated along a main road that terminates at the beach. As tourism increases and the town grows, streets running parallel to the beach also start to become filled with tourism-related establishments (Smith 1991). This eventually leads to the development of a definable tourism business district or districts (Stansfield and Rickert 1970). Further development often leads to a decline in environmental quality that is manifested as congested streets and beach areas, degradation of natural environments and habitat, replacement of culturally appropriate forms of architecture with inappropriate forms and other environmental changes that negatively impact on both actual and perceived environmental quality (Butler 1980; Smith 1991). As development continues, social problems such as increased crime can also become noticeable. If these changes result in decreased tourism activity, and this in

1.1 The Plight of Coastal Towns

turn impacts on economic benefits that are gained from tourism – tourists are less likely to be attracted to places where they feel that their characters have been destroyed – this can result in significant community dissatisfaction (Brohman 1996). The environmental and social changes can also lead to a sense of alienation for local residents from their familiar, everyday surroundings (Joseph and Kavoori 2001; Faulkenberry et al. 2000; Juarez 2002; Green 2005), which often results in disruptions to place attachments that residents may have established with local areas and place features over time (Brown and Perkins 1992; Low and Altman 1992). The changes also often translate into an erosion of the character of these places and the more popular that they become, the more likely they will undergo characteristic changes that negatively impact on their distinctive character. This has been the fate of many coastal towns that have relied on tourism as their main source of income without instituting measures to protect features integral to their unique expressions of place-character, only to find that tourist numbers evaporate once people feel that the town’s character has been lost, at which time they move on to the next ‘un-spoilt’ location. As more and more tourists flock to the new destination, and inevitable development is not far behind, there is a danger that the character of the new destination will also be lost, prompting future tourists to seek out yet the next undiscovered ‘authentic’ destination. This cycle has been repeated in many coastal places around the world, leaving in its wake a plethora of serious social, economic and environmental problems (Butler 1980; Green 2005; Harrison and Price 1996; Hillary et al. 2001; King et al. 1993; Madan and Rawat 2000; Mansprerger 1995; McGoodwin 1986; McKercher 1993; Smith 1991; Teye et al. 2002; Tosun 2002). As towns grow due to tourism conflicts between tourists, newer migrants and more established residents can also arise. Demand for housing sought by vacationers typically increases both the cost of rents and real-estate values. Prices for everything else, such as food and services, also increase, sometimes dramatically. As a consequence, more established, often less wealthy residents and who are less able to relocate, such as the elderly

5

and younger people, find living increasingly difficult. This is also true for those who come to work in the service industries and who are unable to afford to rent or buy homes near where they work. One obvious solution is to create more affordable housing to counterbalance higher priced housing, as has been done in some places, but this takes political will and financial resources that are often lacking. Landscapes at the interface of the land and sea, the littoral zone, are also typically ecologically fragile places and are often places of high bio-diversity. As a result, tourism development in these landscapes can be associated with serious ecological impacts. Given the fact that many tourists who visit coastal places are often seeking access to unspoiled natural environments these impacts can have a direct impact on the viability of tourism in these places. The environmental degradation is often due to the impact of people visiting these places, particularly in large numbers, which often results in environmental systems breaking down. New development that caters to tourists can also encroach on natural areas and in the process habitats are destroyed and vegetation patterns changed, impacting on its value for fauna. The introduction of more impervious surfaces associated with tourism development has the additional impact of changing hydrological patterns and exacerbating flooding, and this too can lead to erosion that further disturbs ecosystems. With climate change, and more severe and frequent storm events that are expected, and the increased flooding that will come with it, the addition of more impervious surfaces will only compound the ecological problems these places already face. Tourism is often seen as an attractive alternative to towns trying to diversify their economies, particularly in places where traditional industries are dying. For example, many coastal towns have relied on fishing. But due to various factors, such as over-fishing and destruction of marine habitats, fishing industries worldwide are now threatened. While many communities welcome tourism as a way of generating increased economic activity as a substitute for the industries that they are losing, the jobs that are generated are typically

6

lower paying in retail and other service industries, and often part-time and/or subject to seasonal variations. These factors make the economic benefits that can potentially be derived from tourism much less certain and in some instances can represent a net economic loss for the community. Tourists also place additional stress on local infrastructure yet typically do not contribute to the costs associated with its maintenance, further adding to the economic burdens of these communities. The challenge in making tourism sustainable is to somehow capture the economic benefits that it can offer while still protecting the resources that are instrumental in attracting tourists, e.g. natural environments, cultural heritage features, recreational opportunities, the relaxed lifestyles often associated with semi-rural coastal towns, and importantly, the distinctive and appealing character that many coastal settlements possess and which frequently represents their major tourist attraction. 1.1.4 Transformation in place character As mentioned, one of the unfortunate consequences of people moving to and visiting smaller coastal towns in large numbers is that this often results in the loss of the very qualities that initially attracted people to these places. The introduction of what is perceived by local residents to be ‘inappropriate’ development, which comes in the form of new houses and commercial buildings to cater to the new residents and tourists, along with degradation of the natural environment that often accompanies it, is a key concern. One of the most frequently heard complaints, often voiced by more established residents, who have witnessed the changes over longer time frames, centers around the negative impact such development has on their sense of place and town ‘character and ambience’ (Garnham 1985; Hough 1990; Kunstler 1993; Schuster 1990). What residents in many coastal towns perceive to be ‘inappropriate’ development, and which generally provoke the strongest reaction, are often large, visually prominent buildings sited in highly visible locations. However, equally responsible for the transformation in place-character are many smaller, incremental changes that occur over a longer period of time.

Chapter 1: Introduction

This is often a result of older, small single-family homes being purchased by wealthy urbanites, which they promptly demolish and replace with out of scale, standardized, ‘global’ forms of architecture, often referred to as McMansion style developments. Such developments have become a ubiquitous sight along many coastlines near major metropolitan areas in Australia, the United States and Europe. When this development also damages natural ecosystems, for example due to poorly sited and designed architecture, destruction of vegetation during the construction and ill-conceived landscape design actions, loss of distinctive and valued place-character is often one of the consequences. Conservation of coastal ecosystems and indigenous vegetation, naturally occurring water bodies, distinctive geological features and other locally occurring natural features, that are unique to the particular geographic locations, is particularly important in preserving the character of these places. Such natural environmental features are critical because they typically provide the substrate upon which the character of many small coastal towns is built. Controlling the form and siting of new development, with the aim of protecting environmental systems, and blending development with the natural landscape, can be accomplished through strong statutory planning regulations that aim to make new development compatible with existing town character. However, the conservation of place-character, in these settings, is rarely given high priority by local governments. Planners often do not understand community perceptual values well enough to know what residents perceive to be most important in terms of town and neighborhood character. As Gurren and her colleagues, who have studied the impact of the ‘sea-change’ phenomenon in Australia, point out (2005; p. 7): Local character or “sense of place” in smaller coastal communities is being overwhelmed by the scale and or pace of new residential and tourism developments (De Jong 2001; Green 2000a). There is a lack of effective planning methodologies and tools to preserve and enhance the attributes of place (including cultural

1.2

Community Responses heritage sites, places for local recreation, contemplation and encounter) that are important to local residents.

1.2

Community Responses

Many coastal communities seem to be engaged in endless battles with developers and local planners in efforts to stop the introduction of new development that they feel will be inappropriate and ‘out of character’. These sentiments were aptly expressed in a letter published a couple of years back in the Melbourne newspaper The Age, written by a resident of the coastal hamlet of Aireys Inlet, in which he compared the impact of the area’s recent development boom to the devastating 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires: We first came to one of those little towns in 1981. In 1983, the Ash Wednesday bushfires roared through the area, resulting in loss of life and massive destruction of property … the whole community [now] face a different threat … The developers have moved in. The threat posed by developers is far more insidious, but, like the bushfires, it can result in extensive destruction of the environment. It creeps in slowly, making sudden incursions here and there, and then darting off in a new direction…Spot fires break out without warning. While residents are desperately fighting on one front another smoulders, waiting to burst into flame.2

While government bodies responsible for managing environmental change and controlling the form of new development often struggle in responding to such concerns, their efforts all too often fail to quell public discontent. The problem can often be traced back to the methods, or lack thereof, that

2

The Age, January 8, 2004 ‘Villagers wary as developers fan the flames of progress’ Letter by David Campbell.

7

they employ to help understand the character of areas under their jurisdiction. In most instances the way communities themselves actually experience their local environments are ignored and instead the planners rely on their own professional judgments, or that of hired consultants to determine what features are, and are not, important in conveying local place-character. In many instances this inability to understand and protect valued place character results in a profound loss of faith by the communities in the ability of their local government to effectively conserve features of the landscape integral to the character of these towns. In many instances, residents become fed up with planning authorities who approve development applications for buildings that they feel are incompatible with the character of their towns. This often becomes the catalyst for them to band together to collectively respond to proposals for new developments that they feel will be incompatible with local place-character. One such community group, aptly named Residents Against Inappropriate Development, or RAID, is an example of where residents in one Australian town (the town of Torquay, which, like Aireys Inlet, is located along Australia’s Great Ocean Road) banded together to fight proposals for new development that they felt would ultimately destroy the unique character of the town. Their aim, like that of many such groups, is to pressure local authorities to give greater consideration to their environmental values in the formulation and enforcement of planning regulations. Their desire is for better protection of features of the environment that they feel are important to the town’s character, and avoid the introduction of features they feel will detract from that character. Other examples of such community groups that have sprung up in coastal towns where sense of place is being threatened by inappropriate development and other environmental changes are the Friends of Lorne and Aireys Inlet and District Association (AIDA), both of which are also based in towns along Australia’s Great Ocean Road. Chapter 5 reviews several other community groups that have sprung up in various places around the world who are working to conserve valued place-character in coastal areas.

8

Such grassroots groups often mount legal challenges at the state level in efforts to stop proposals for what they consider to be inappropriate development from being realized. One noteworthy case, which has provided somewhat of a precedent, was the proposed development of a number of residential units in the Great Ocean Road town of Aireys Inlet, but which the community felt would be ‘out-of-character’. The local authorities agreed with the community and rejected the application. The developer then appealed the decision to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT 2000), the state planning appeals court. The court ruled to uphold the local government’s initial rejection of the application based on the grounds that the form of the proposed development would likely have a negative impact on the town’s unique character. In their ruling they cited the fact that the site was protected by a planning overlay that had the stated aim of protecting and enhancing ‘… the low density residential character and natural bush setting’, ‘… individual identity and landscape character’ of the site, and of promoting development which ‘… complements or is sympathetic to the streetscape character’. In this case the local planners had the foresight to identify the importance of the town’s unique character and to define its qualities and encode this in legally enforceable planning regulations. In the majority of cases, however, this same court has sided with developers over community sentiments, dismissing such arguments as too ‘subjective’ upon which to base planning decisions. When contentious development proposals are approved by local governments, even despite highly vocal objections from community groups, the rational is often based on the counter argument that such objections are merely motivated by NIMBY reactions (an acronym for ‘not in my back yard’), objections they argue are not a valid basis for rejecting development applications because they do not necessarily reflect the concerns of the wider community but only those of special interest groups – those who live in close proximity to the proposed development. Another frequently used argument is that aesthetic values are not necessarily shared within the same community, based on the assumption that everyone possesses different aesthetic tastes, thus making this an unreliable criterion for basing planning

Chapter 1: Introduction

decisions. In many instances it simply comes down to the priorities of governments that regard conservation of place-character and community sense of place as more of a luxury when compared with matters that they consider to be of more vital importance, such as increasing financial revenue. It can be argued, however, that environmental perceptual values and community sense of place are integral components of people’s well-being and quality of life. While these values are often difficult to measure, they are nonetheless very important to residents in towns where environmental changes are impacting on their quality of life, as witnessed by protests that have occurred in places where communities have mobilized to stop developments from being built that they feel will negatively impact on valued town character (Green 2000a). While there are convincing environmental and human well-being arguments for conserving coastal town-character, there are also some very clear economic incentives, particularly in places where distinctive place-character plays a key role in attracting tourists and in supporting property values, as it does in many coastal towns. As previously mentioned, undesirable changes to environments and loss of valued place-character often results in driving tourists away, who then seek out new destinations that they feel have still retained their desirable character. This can directly result in loss of revenue from tourism and in lower property values. Conversely, by conserving and/or enhancing desirable expressions of local character, property values and tourism activity can be maintained and often increased once the place gets known to be one that still has ‘a lot of character’. Attempts by grassroots groups to fight proposals for new development that they feel will be ‘out of character’ also results in costly and time-consuming legal challenges, which by avoiding can save both time and money for relevant government bodies, developers and the community. 1.3

Conserving Place Character

Notions of place-character, sense of place and similar concepts are currently being used in planning practice in many places around the world in efforts

1.3

Conserving Place Character

to protect areas considered to possess special character that is worthy of conservation. However, urban planners have had difficulty understanding exactly what makes a particular area special in terms of its character while other places are not deemed worthy of such protection. In the United Kingdom the designation of an area as a Conservation Area has been used to conserve places considered to have outstanding character. These are typically areas with collections of spectacular, large, unusual or highly scenic features. In Northern Ireland a second layer of protection administered at the local level has emerged to protect areas of ‘townscape and village character’. These refer to areas that are not considered worthy of conservation area status but nonetheless are important because they exhibit distinct character, though not considered ‘special’ enough to warrant national recognition. Under the Northern Ireland legislation people in a local community can propose areas that they feel are worthy of protection if they feel the area possesses special townscape character, which can then be protected under a local area plan. The introduction of this legislation was driven by the recognition that there are often differences in the way that the user public perceives the character of their towns and individual neighborhoods, and how policy-makers perceive such areas. The local community may demand protection of townscapes of local significance that may not be remarkable visually but are still extremely important to their sense of place (Galway and McEldowney 2006). This schism between policy-makers and planners on the one side, and the user public on the other, suggests that if notions of place-character, in its various forms, are to serve a useful role in planning practice, they must be defined in a way that accurately reflects public experiences and values. In other words, attributes associated with place-character need to be able to be systematically related to the perceptions and values of the user public at the local level (Lynch 1976; Rapoport 1985). This raises a host of questions that need to be addressed with respect to protecting place-character in coastal towns, and is the focus of this book: What does town character mean for ordinary residents in these communities and how might it be

9

assessed so that it can be conserved? Will members of these communities share similar perceptions of town-character? If so, can the environmental features associated with local conceptions of place-character, and the residents psychological responses to these features, be related to manageable aspects of the environment, thus allowing a measure of planning and design control to be exerted over place-character? The ability to conserve town-character in such settings will rely, to a large extent, on the ability to identify socially agreed upon features of the place that are considered supportive of its character, which is necessary before they can be conserved. As Schuster (1990; p. 80) suggests: … if one could identify key elements of local and regional character one might be able to understand better just what was being lost. If this proves possible then it might also be possible to propose ways in which… towns could allow (if not welcome) growth while shaping it.

But what exactly are the types of features typically associated with placecharacter? A report, one in a series of ‘Character and Heritage Studies’ undertaken by the Brisbane City Council, suggests that ‘… the character of an area derives from a combination of distinctive elements (aggregate qualities). A character area is likely to be a street, or larger area with a high concentration of these elements.’ They go on to identify topography, building styles and materials, vegetation and street plantings, major landmarks (such as churches and public buildings) and streetscape elements, such as fences, kerbs, footpaths and garages, as possible character-defining elements (Brisbane City Council 1995 p. 12). A Victorian Department of Infrastructure publication (2001; p. 1), entitled Understanding Neighbourhood Character, suggests that ‘neighborhood character’ is: … essentially the combination of the public and private realms. Every property, public place or piece of infrastructure makes a contribution, whether great of small. It is the cumulative im-

10

Chapter 1: Introduction pact of all these contributions that establishes neighbourhood character.

But planners struggling with how to conserve and/or enhance the character of areas under their jurisdiction are still grappling with how best to identify such features so that they might be able to exert some control over them. While the conservation of such character defining features is vitally important, assessment of the type and form of newly introduced features also needs to be considered. Applications for new developments have to be assessed in terms of their likely impact on existing place-character. Appropriate development should not be that which merely mimics existing ‘in-character’ features, but it does need to be sympathetic to existing expressions of place character by incorporating attributes reflective of ‘incharacter’ features, and do this by not simply copying them. This means environmental designers need to strive towards creating new architectural and landscape forms that will be sympathetic to the environmental context in which they are sited. This approach to design is in stark contrast to calls by some who advocate bold statements that will purposely be in opposition to existing place-character in an effort to create what they refer to as ‘spectacles’. Alterations to existing features also need to be considered because in many instances this can lead to gradual degradation of a town’s character that can have an equal or even more significant impact than the introduction of new elements. Such smaller, incremental changes often occur over longer periods of time and are typically more subtle visually. As Galway and McEldowney (2006; p. 400) suggest this: … is caused primarily by insensitive design of townscape alterations and advances in 20th century technology that have led to the mass production of homogenous plastic shop fronts, windows and doors. The loss of the very elements that make a townscape distinctive, such as railings, walls, windows, chimneys, brickwork, paths and tress, and their replacements by mass-produced, homogenized and standardized features, amounts to the incremental degradation…

Since every place is unique community conceptions of its character and the types of features, and associated attributes that define its character, will inevitably vary between different locations. Additionally, people’s conceptions of the character of a place will vary as a result of differences in their memories, personalities, behaviors and other factors, which will influence how they experience places. These experiences will also inevitably change over time (Chawla 1992; Relph 1976). Due to such variation, one would not expect individual place images to be homogeneous within small town communities as each person will hold a somewhat unique conception of the character of their individual town or neighborhood. However, sociallyconstructed conceptions of place character, exhibiting a high degree of consensus among members of small town communities have been identified in a number of studies that have explored perceptions of town character using a variety of assessment criteria (Green et al. 1985b, 1999, 2000a,b; Hester 1985a,b; Hull 1992; Palmer 1983; Schuster 1990). The results of these studies suggest that there are remarkable commonalities with respect to the dimensions of human responses, the general types of character-defining features involved, and relationships between responses and place features that suggest analytical generalizations applicable across different locations and setting types with regard to how residents in small town environments conceptualize town character. Constructs such as town character and sense of place have been increasingly used in planning practice (Habe 1989; Heath 1992; Preiser and Rohane 1988; Southworth 1989). For example, in one study in the United States the concept of ‘community character compatibility’ was identified in the context of public design controls as a key criterion used by local planners for assessing the perceptual impacts of development on communities (Habe 1989). In that study 98% of the 66 planners surveyed rated ‘community character compatibility’ as either important or very important for assessing experiential impacts of development on the public. In another study (Southworth 1989; p. 373) maintaining town ‘structure and legibility’, variously defined as ‘sense of place’, ‘unique identity’ and ‘strong district … neighborhood … local vernacular … [and] …residential character’,

1.3

Conserving Place Character

was the most frequently cited objective found in a sample of 70 urban design/town plan documents drawn from a variety of communities across the United States. In addition, potential impact on place-character, and related concepts such as sense of place, are increasingly being used to challenge planning actions, particularly at the local level. There is still, however, a belief held by many authorities and planners that perceptually-based assessment criteria, such as place-character and sense of place, are less important than more ‘serious’ tangible concerns, such as economic and public safety issues. While the importance of the sensed environment to human well-being has been recognized (Low and Altman 1992; Godkin 1980; Lynch 1976), and is progressively finding its way into planning policy and legislation in various places around the world, there has been limited empirical research focused on trying to understand exactly how place-character is manifested and how it is experienced by the user public in different environmental settings, making its assessment difficult. As the legal basis for the conservation of place-character is increasingly recognized, as it is in the United States, the Untied Kingdom and Australia, governments, at federal, state and local levels, have introduced various forms of ‘character legislation’ aimed at protecting place-character in its various forms, e.g. town character, village character, sense of place. This is testimony to the increasing recognition that these notions are more than simply ‘… a matter of esthetics and that esthetics is a private, whimsical, unpredictable affair, quite distinct from such practical and “objective” issues as health, safety, and property value.’ (Lynch 1976; p. 40). As an example, the Australian state of Victoria introduced a set of planning provisions collectively referred to as ResCode that directs municipal governments to assess the impact of all proposed residential development in terms of its likely impact on ‘neighborhood character’ (Victorian Department of Infrastructure 2001c). Under this directive, councils are required to develop regulations for controlling the form and siting of new resi-

11

dential development so that it will ‘fit’ into the context of existing neighborhood character. Residents in towns in which they feel the character is under threat have welcomed this legislation and its greater emphasis on the conservation of local character. But there has also been a great deal of confusion on the part of government authorities in terms of how place-character is to be assessed, to what degree it must be respected in comparison to other considerations (e.g. economic), and the types of planning mechanisms that will be effective in maintaining and/or enhancing positive expressions of local character. In response to ResCode, municipalities across the state have undertaken studies to determine exactly what it is that defines the character of neighborhoods under their jurisdiction, the results of which they use to formulate or amend legally enforceable local planning schemes aimed at giving them more control over the form of new development so it will be compatible with existing and/or future preferred neighborhood-character. Typically, such studies are undertaken by planning and environmental design experts – i.e. urban planners, landscape architects – who use their professional judgment to identify the features and associated attributes of places that they feel are most important in conveying their character. But there is body of evidence to suggest that the results of such expert-based environmental quality appraisals are often incongruent with public environmental values, suggesting a need for perceptually-based approaches that directly involve local communities in conducting these types of studies (Devlin and Nasar 1989; Hershberger 1988; Pennartz and Elsinga 1990; Uzzell and Leward 1990). Many coastal towns around the world have likewise introduced various forms of legislation as a way protecting valued expressions of place-character. These regulations are typically based on controlling land-uses, the form of new development, and the conservation of natural environmental and heritage features considered instrumental in conveying the character of specified areas. This is often achieved through various zoning techniques and protective conservation overlays. The Neighborhood Character Overlay is one such instrument that planners in Victoria can use to exert control

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

over environmental changes in order to conserve neighborhood-character (Nankervis 2003). Guiding the siting of infrastructure in an effort to control the pace and form of new development is another strategy that has been used in some towns. The goal of all these initiatives has been to preserve a stable framework of familiar and valued environmental features that are expressive of local place-character while guiding new growth to be compatible with the most valuable aspects of that character. However, often these initiatives do not go far enough, and the results are disappointing. This is frequently because the planners responsible for formulating, implementing and enforcing these measures often fail to understand the environmental perceptions of residents in the towns under their jurisdiction with regard to how they experience character within the context of their everyday lives. But if equipped with the right methods, planners can involve residents in defining what it is that they perceive defines the character of their towns and neighborhoods, what needs to be protected, what needs to be discouraged and to what degree people are willing to accept changes and consent to development. 1.4

Sustainable Development

Agenda 21, an outcome of the Earth Summit held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, recognized the plight of the Earth’s coastal areas and the need for these areas to be developed in a sustainable fashion. The focus of this international agreement was on environmental protection but it also recognized economic aspects of development as well as the need to consider the values of people who inhabit these areas. It called for an integrated approach to managing development in coastal areas, recognizing that it is not realistic to stop change from occurring in these areas given their attractiveness to people. In some coastal places, such as low-lying islands, impacts from climate change are already being felt. In order to safeguard these areas and the people that inhabit them, it will be necessary to adapt to these changes

in ways that hopefully will allow us to repair some of the damage that these areas have suffered in the past and stop further deterioration. Ultimately, at-risk coastal settlements may require new infrastructure and/or existing infrastructure to be retrofitted, land-uses re-thought, and in some instances people will need to be relocated in adapting to these changes. In some instances strategies for limiting or slowing down growth may be necessary to make this managed change possible. But there is no reason that these changes need to be implemented in ways that will detract from the desirable character that many coastal places possess (Green 2008). No doubt the process of adapting to climate change will be costly for governments, industry and residents alike because coastal areas are likely to face multiple threats, from continued growth associated with people being drawn to these areas to live, increased tourism and now climate change. In terms of conserving the special character that many coastal landscapes possess, and which has been instrumental in attracting people to these places, the aim should not be simply to conserve collections of relics frozen in time, but to preserve a framework of the most valuable, and valued landscape features, and manage change in ways that will harmoniously build on this framework over time. This will require an understanding of what is most important about these places and what it is that detracts from the character of these places so it can be avoided in the future. The overriding objective should be to conserve those features of the environments that are most valued and shape changes, such as new development, so that it will be compatible with the desirable aspects of these environments, while simultaneously discouraging negative changes.

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character This chapter explores the notion of place character and associated concepts – sense of place, genius loci, place-identity, place-attachment – from a theoretical perspective. It tries to make sense of these concepts in an effort to better understand what it is that people mean when they talk about valued place character, and loss of character, within the context of the small coastal towns that is the focus of this book.

2.1 What Is Place Character? Place-character, often simply described as the ‘feel’, ‘ambience’ or ‘atmosphere’ of a place, is admittedly an elusive and somewhat difficult term to define, precisely because it is an inherently intangible experiential phenomenon, yet it is conveyed through tangible features of environments. All places possess character, which is akin to each person possessing a unique personality; only, it is expressed through the unique constellations of sociophysical characteristics that differentiate environments from one another (Tuan 1974a). Some places are considered to possess more recognizable identities than are other places and have more expressive character. Placecharacter is considered by many people a highly valued amenity, as witnessed by communities that lament its loss and tourists who gravitate to places that they feel have still retained ‘a lot of character’, while avoiding places that they feel have lost their character. Yet it is often hard to know exactly why some places are regarded as possessing desirable character, while other places seem to lack this quality, these are what the geographer Edward Relph (1976) has referred to as ‘placeless’ environments, denoting settings that lack distinctiveness of character, and which may encourage a sense of place alienation.

The word character itself simply denotes the aggregate of distinctive features that distinguish one thing, person or place from others. Place character is conveyed by assemblages of distinctive place features that collectively give places their unique identities. It is both defined by the aggregation of distinctive elements and one’s familiarity with them over time. Something that is out of character is that which is inconsistent with previously known character. The term ‘town-character’ is often used by people in judging the appropriateness of changes to their local environments (Green 1999, 2000a). The notion of ‘sense of place’, which is closely related to the idea of place character, refers to an individual’s experience of a place as conveyed by distinctive features and meanings associated with the place that gives it a unique identity. Kevin Lynch (1976; pp. 24–25) writing in his seminal book on the topic, Managing the Sense of a Region, clarifies the meaning of these terms in stating: We have powerful abilities for recognizing places and for integrating them into mental images, but the sensory form of those places can make that effort at understanding more or less difficult. So we take delight in physically distinctive, recognizable locales and attach our feelings and meanings to them. They make us feel at home, grounded. Place character is often recalled with affection; its lack is a frequent subject of popular complaint … Indeed, a strong sense of place supports our personal identity. For that reason familiar features of the landscape are fiercely defended.

The concept of ‘place’ itself has been variously defined as space given meaning through personal, group or cultural processes (Low and Altman 1992), or space with the addition of distinctive character (Norberg-Schulz 1980). Altman and Zube (1989; p. 2) suggest that the transformation of a ‘space’ into a ‘place’ occurs when the ‘… abstract geographical qualities of environments … become transformed into meaningful places as people use, modify, or attribute symbolic value to specific settings’. In broad terms, these concepts refer to a person’s identification with, and attachment

14

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

to, places and associated features (Low and Altman 1992; Hummon 1992; Sime 1986). But the essential point is that people can possess a ‘sense of place’ associated with the ‘character of places’, or the aggregation of distinctive and familiar place features. While a place can possess unique and distinctive character only people can have a ‘sense of place’. Steele (1981; p. 11) clarifies this distinction between place character, or what he refers to as ‘spirit of place’, and sense of place in saying: … sense of place … is the particular experience of a person in a particular setting, (feeling stimulated, excited, joyous, expansive, and so forth); and spirit of place … is the combination of characteristics that give some locations a special ‘feel’ or personality …

maintenance (Buttimer 1980; Lynch 1976; Relph 1976; Seamon 1979, 1982, 1985, 1989; Tuan 1974b). Relph (1976; p. 43) describes the complex interrelationship between attributes related to experiences of ‘place’ in saying: Although in our everyday lives we may be largely unaware of the deep psychological and existential ties we have to the places where we live, the relationships are no less important for that. It may be that it is just the physical appearance, the landscape of a place that is important to us, or it may be an awareness of the persistence of place through time, or the fact that here is where we know and are known, or where the most significant experiences of our lives have occurred. But if we are really rooted in a place and attached to it, if this place is authentically our home, then all of those facets are profoundly significant and inseparable.

Tuan maintains that people will experience a sense of place in two fundamental ways; through perceptual and aesthetic awareness of the environment, and through the meanings one ascribes to it over time. He refers to the former as ‘public symbols’ and the latter as ‘fields of care’, the distinction being that the former are more obvious visually, while the later are more inconspicuous, but elicit deeper affective responses (Tuan 1974a; p. 236). The more familiar a person is with a place the more he or she will weave such affective meanings into their conceptions of the place, while the less familiar, the more they will rely on perceptual cues, or what Tuan refers to as public symbols, in conceptualizing the character of the place. Depending upon one’s familiarity and identification with the environment, their conceptions of it will reflect both these modes of experience to varying degrees.

People can also share socially-constructed place experiences, something that often occurs between people within small town communities. Over time, individual place images tend to get incorporated into socially-constructed group images, the degree to which depends on one’s familiarity with the place. Relph (1976) suggests that such shared place images will be structured both vertically and horizontally, with the vertical dimension representing individual intensity and depth of experience, while the horizontal dimension represents the degree of knowledge about the place, shared by others whom one is intimately associated in that place.

Sense of place is conceived of as being a highly multidimensional experience conveyed through environmental, social and cultural attributes of places, and people’s psychological responses to these attributes (Low and Altman 1992; Rapoport 1985; Relph 1976; Tuan 1974a). It is something encompassing more than simply the experience of physical appearances; although environmental aesthetic aspects are very important to its expression (Green 1999; Jakle 1987), the meaning ascribed to familiar, everyday places is thought to be particularly important to its establishment and

Conflicts can occur between different groups who share different conceptions of a place. For example, ‘insiders’ within a community might oppose a particular environmental change, e.g. proposal for a new building that they feel will be incompatible with their conceptions of the character of the place. ‘Outsiders’ on the other hand may not be as troubled by the prospect of such a change because they have not yet had time to form a definite image of the place against which they can judge the compatibly of the change. To insiders, who would be more likely to have formed meaningful, often

2.1 What Is Place Character?

unselfconscious bonds with their familiar everyday environments, the change may be perceived as a threat to their very sense of self. Since outsiders will tend to lack such deep and meaningful connections the change may not be a threat to their sense of self, and therefore, will not necessarily be perceived as inappropriate. The implication here is that through long-term involvement in, and familiarity with a place, the insider will establish emotional attachments that outsiders will typically not have had time to form. 2.1.1

Placelessness

As previously mentioned, writers such as Relph (1976; p. 90) make a basic distinction between places that provide meaningful experiences, and possess distinctive character, and those that are devoid of such meaning and identity, environments which he describes as ‘placeless’. ‘Placelessness’, he maintains, is formed by ‘… the weakening of distinct and diverse experiences and identities of places … [which] … marks a major shift in the geographical bases of existence from a deep association with places to rootlessness.’ Tuan (1974a) attributes it to the weakening of peoples’ emotional involvement with places, loss of immediate contact with physical settings (e.g. as a result of reliance on automobiles instead of walking) and the decline of meaningful place-based celebrations, particularly those that occur periodically over time and at particular localities. Environments considered to be ‘placeless’ have also been linked with homogeneity of the built environment, such as is manifest in many suburban housing developments (Kunstler 1993). Examples of many contemporary and modernist architectural designs, which are often purposefully designed to ignore connections with their surroundings, have likewise been cited as responsible for the creation of placeless environments. The removal of features that are instrumental in distinguishing places from one another, that can result from poorly conceived land development actions, has also been cited as a factor in the creation of placeless environments (Guiliani and Feldman 1993; Hough 1990). A sense of continuity with a place is thought to be important in establishing meaningful place experiences, and loss of such continuity, such

15

as can occur as a result of rapid changes in an environment, for example, due to a natural disaster like a bushfire (Green et al. 1985a,b), can also result in those places being perceived as being placeless. Perceived loss of authenticity has been identified as yet another contributing cause of placelessness. Relph (1976; p. 82) refers to ‘kitsch’ and ‘technique’ as two key attributes associated with inauthentic environments and loss of meaningful place character. ‘Kitsch’ he defines as the ‘… uncritical acceptance of mass values … associated with the environments and environmental features produced for consumption by the mass public, such as found in items associated with mass tourism.’ ‘Technique’ he defines as a self-conscious, yet inauthentic, response to places, often manifested in the form of physical planning actions that assume ‘… space is uniform and objects and activities can be manipulated and freely located within it; differentiation by significance is of little importance and places are reduced to simple locations with the greatest quality being development potential’ (Relph 1976; p. 87). But how ‘authentic places’ are differentiated from ‘inauthentic and placeless’ environments is never really made clear in Relph’s writings. 2.1.2

Place attachment

People can become emotionally attached to places and place features (Low and Altman 1992) and these attachments often become integral to their sense of place (Brown and Perkins 1992). Such attachments become particularly important when they are threatened or disrupted during times of environmental change (Fried 1963; Godkin 1980; Sell and Zube 1986), which can result in a sense of continuity with the environment being lost. As Taylor et al. (1987; p. 383) point out, ‘The strength of these attachments may not be apparent until places are removed from the landscape – when the corner store is torn down; the childhood swimming hole is filled, or the nearby woodlot cut down.’ Yet it has also been suggested that even the threat of change to valued places can draw communities together in their defense, thereby strengthening community sense of place and promoting

16

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

a desire for environmental stability, greater local control and for slower, as opposed to more rapid change (Sell and Zube 1986). Reflecting on this Tuan (1974a; p. 243) suggests that: Residents not only sense but know that their world has an identity and a boundary when they feel threatened …. We owe our sense of being not only to supportive forces but also to those that pose a threat. Being has a centre and an edge: supportive forces nurture the centre while threatening forces strengthen the edge.

This can explain why individuals and entire communities can sometimes vehemently resist proposals for changes to familiar landscapes. Because people’s attachment to places and their sense of self-identity are often linked, it is understandable that modifications to places, to which they have become attached, might be vigorously resisted because of the potential that these changes have to impact on their psychological well-being. People can become emotionally attached to any place or place feature, be it natural (Fishwick and Vining 1992) or built, (Low 1992), and at various environmental scales from the nation (Tuan 1974b) one’s town (Green 2000a; Green et al. 1985; Harper 1987; Hester 1985b, 1990), individual neighborhood (Hull 1992) and especially one’s home environment (Cooper 1974; Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton 1981; Pennartz 1986; Sixsmith 1986). Place attachments may also qualitatively change over the course of one’s lifetime (Chawla 1992). Furthermore, not only individuals, but also families, communities and entire cultures can share similar attachments to places. A sense of belonging to a place, which is integral to forming place attachments, is something that develops over time as people become increasingly familiar with their everyday surroundings. Relph (1976) suggests a dialectic relationship exists between the place experiences of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, the difference being largely determined by the degree to which one feels a sense of belonging with a place. He conceptualizes this as a

continuum from what he defines as ‘existential insiders’ at one extreme to ‘objective outsiders’ at the other. Place experiences of objective outsiders represent a ‘… a deep separation of person and place’. He characterizes this as the way planners and environmental designers can experience places based on information gleaned solely from maps, photographs and written descriptions in which they hold a ‘… dispassionate attitude towards places in order to consider them selectively in terms of their location or as spaces where objects and activities are located …’ (Relph 1976; p. 51). Through purely visual displays, such as portrayed in popular cultural imagery, for example images used to advertise tourism destinations, outsiders can, to an extent, have vicarious experiences of places that they have never engaged with. In contrast, ‘existential insiders’ are said to be ‘rooted’ to places (Tuan 1980), be it their home, neighborhood or town, and where they are intimately familiar with the local environment and known by others who inhabit the same place. Other writers have proposed similar place experience models, for example the sociologist David Hummon (1992; p. 263) differentiates place experiences along a continuum from ‘everyday’ and ‘ideological rootedness’, through to ‘alienation’, ‘relatively’ and finally ‘placelessness’. Although there have been a variety of definitions proposed for the concept of place attachment (Low 1992; Riley 1992; Rubinstein and Parmelee 1992) the one given by Brown and Perkins (1992; p. 284) is particularly useful with respect to the research presented in this book: Place attachment involves positively experienced bonds, sometimes occurring without awareness, that are developed over time from the behavioral, affective, and cognitive ties between individuals and/or groups and their sociophysical environment. These bonds provide a framework for both individual and communal aspects of identity and have both stabilizing and dynamic features. The environments may include homes or communities, places that are important and directly experienced but which may not have easily specified boundaries. Predominantly negative

2.1 What Is Place Character? connections to place characterize failed attachment, which may be experienced as alienation. Transformation in place attachment occurs whenever the people, places, or psychological processes change over time.

Low and Altman (1992) have identified a range of attributes associated with the notion of place attachment. Firstly, place attachment, and related concepts such as sense of place are seen to be useful for integrating interrelated and often inseparable aspects of person-place bonds allowing them to be synthesized into a single unified conceptual framework. Secondly, processes related to the establishment of place attachments are seen to be complex, multidimensional and holistic in nature. Thirdly, the concept denotes cognitive and behavioral, as well affective responses to the environment. This means that the manner in which people think about and act within a place are also involved in their developing emotional ties with the place. Attachment to places is also thought to contribute to individual, group and cultural self-definition (Proshansky 1978; Proshansky et al. 1983). In addition, biological, environmental and sociological attributes of places, and our psychological responses to them, have been associated with the concept. At the most basic level this relates to the fulfillment of human needs, such as water, food and shelter needed for survival, suggested by some scholars to be related to an evolutionary predisposition for liking certain environments and environmental features (Appleton 1975; Kaplan 1987; Orians 1986). Our ability to adapt to places, and likewise the ability of environments to shape people – their thoughts, emotions and actions – as embodied in theories of environmental determinism (Gallagher 1994), are also seen to be instrumental in the establishment of place attachments. It is also thought to underlie our need to have control over local resources and their utilization, and related to a sense of territoriality. Psychological responses to environments as expressed through a sense of belonging, security and place-identity, are seen to play a role (Proshansky et al. 1983) as are cultural and social norms, as witnessed in placebased rituals, mythological associations with places and place naming, all

17

of which are cultural mechanisms associated with attachment to places (Low and Altman 1992). Finally, the ability to form attachments to place features may serve to dispel a sense of alienation and displacement in unfamiliar settings or when one is faced with rapid environmental changes – for example in the aftermath of a natural disaster (Green et al. 1985b) or during times of rapid change in one’s residential environs (Fried 1963). Tuan (1974a; p. 234) gives a useful analogy for explaining the link between place attachment and place character in stating that: … a place that evokes affection has personality in the same sense that an old raincoat can be said to have character. The character of the raincoat is imparted by the person who wears it and grows fond of it. The raincoat is for use, and yet in time it acquires a personality, a certain wayward shape and smell that is uniquely its own.

The concept of ‘place identity’ (Proshansky 1978; Proshansky et al. 1983) also plays a role in the establishment of a sense of place. This concept denotes the contribution of places and place features to one’s sense of selfidentity, suggesting that one’s self identity relies, to a certain extent, on the distinction between places that one has become attached to, similar to the distinction between one’s self and others. If indeed place features can represent an extension of a person’s self, then preserving distinctive features of a place that differentiate it from other places may be important to the psychological well-being of people. Hence, there may be features associated with places that are important in defining both the character of places and the self and/or group identity of those who live in or visit those places. Modification to the character of places can, therefore, have implications for the psychological and social well being of those living in those place. 2.1.3

Special places

In various cultures and over thousands of years it has been a belief that some localities and associated environmental features can be invested with

18

special meaning for both individuals and groups. Archaeological evidence from many places around the world suggests that most ancient cultures did invest particular localities with special meanings and these localities were distinguished from other places, often to the point of being treated as sacred ground. Such special places have been described as possessing a unique ‘spirit’ or personality. As Tuan (1974a; p. 237) suggests, ‘The essential point is that location, not necessarily remarkable in itself, nonetheless acquires high visibility and meaning because it harbours, or embodies, spirit. Thus people speak of the spirit of places.’ This belief in the sanctity of special places has been an integral part of both Eastern and Western cultures since antiquity. In ancient Greece spirits were believed to guard streams, mountains, sacred groves of trees, rock outcrops and other distinctive features in the landscape. The Roman concept of genius loci, later popularized in eighteenth century Europe and more recently drawn upon for contemporary environmental design and planning inspiration, similarly denotes a respect for the spirit(s) of a place. Still today in many societies these beliefs persist. For example, Bali is a place where people hold strong beliefs that certain place features, such as sacred trees and water bodies, harbor spirits. Likewise, in contemporary Thai society it is a common sight to see people offering incense, candles, flowers and other items to spirits that they believe guard particular places, and this is seen even within the context of highly urban settings such as Bangkok. Such special places are often associated with distinctive natural features, such as caves, springs or large trees, which are believed to the abode of spirits of one kind or another (Guelden 1995; Munier 1998). Excavations in Northeastern Thailand suggest that worship of such place-based spirits was being practiced there for at least the last 6,000 years. Australian Aborigines, who have inhabited the continent of Australia for at least the last 50,000 years, still today regard prominent landscape features, such as striking geological formations, for example Uluru in central Australia, as integral to their sense of place and feature predominately in their ancient Dreamtime mythologies (Rapoport 1972). Many Eastern cultures have embraced this idea and developed elaborate geomantic systems of architectural and land planning. For example, the

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

ancient principles of Vastu Sastra from India, the Asa Asoli lantars of Bali and Feng Shui of China are all based on the premise that some places have more distinctive character, and hence significance, and express it more strongly than do other places. The idea underpinning these traditions is to respect the distinctive qualities inherent in the character of places in their development. People in contemporary Western cultures may likewise invest distinctive landscape features with special meaning, yet perhaps less consciously than do more traditional cultures. Nevertheless, as previously discussed, in modern society attachment to places and associated place features become profoundly apparent, and intense conflicts can result, when such places or place features are threatened or destroyed (Sell and Zube 1986). 2.2

Dimensions of Place Character

Scholars in the fields of environmental planning and design, cultural geography, environmental psychology and other disciplines have tried to determine why people feel certain places are imbued with distinctive and meaningful character while other places are perceived to be devoid of such significance. As previously discussed, notions of place character and sense of place are assumed to be highly complex phenomena, encompassing both individual and group responses to places and associated environmental, cultural and social attributes that give them distinctive identities. Due to the holistic nature of these phenomena it is often difficult to disentangle the various attributes associated with experiences of the character of places. This is because salient place features will be embedded in the context of environments in which people are immersed, meaning those features and their experiences of them will be interconnected. This suggests that both features of the environment and people’s experience of these features need to be understood holistically to fully appreciate how place-character is experienced. Despite this difficulty, an attempt is made in this section to identify some of the key attributes often associated with places thought to possess distinctive and meaningful character.

2.2

2.2.1

Dimensions of Place Character

19

Environmental aesthetics

As mentioned, some scholars (Cosgrove and Daniels 1988) maintain that aesthetic responses to the landscape are purely a result of cultural conditioning. To Cosgrove and his colleagues, the world is composed of images and symbols that are products of culture and our responses to these symbols can be understood only by studying cultural history. These scholars assert that through the process of interpreting landscapes we have imbued them with meaning that over time has changed our perceptions of the natural world. This coincides with suggestions that human perceptions of, and aesthetic preferences for, ‘natural’ landscapes are based purely on European traditions of landscape painting and aesthetic theory, dating from the seventeenth century, which formed cultural conventions of the ‘picturesque’ (Gobster 1999; Nassauer 1995; Parsons and Daniel 2002; Robinson 1991). This notion of the picturesque suggests something that is like a picture, implying that it has somehow been removed from reality. Thus, a picturesque landscape is a manipulated environment. Picturesque notions of nature are inherently divorced from ecological reality and represent a misrepresentation of nature (Parsons and Daniel 2002). While some scholars maintain that contemporary landscape preferences originated in the picturesque traditions of Europe (Cosgrove and Daniels 1988), others, as previously mentioned, suggest that the roots of our landscape preferences are to be found in the much more ancient past (Orians 1986; Shepard 1967, 1993). To test this hypothesis Orians (1986) examined the nineteenth century landscape design philosophy of Humphrey Repton, a key proponent of the picturesque tradition, suggesting that he unknowing modified landscapes to reflect savanna landscape structures. Repton’s use of scattered clumps of trees to break up edges between pasture and forests, for example, were interpreted as being strongly reminiscent of savanna-type landscapes.

Environmental aesthetics can be defined as pleasure derived from sensory stimuli associated with the physical environment. For example, scenic beauty is an aesthetic quality often related to natural environments. Harmonious scales relationships and visual and spatial diversity are other aesthetic attributes frequently associated with places cited as possessing desirable character. While some writers have argued that the notion of scenic beauty is a purely cultural construct (Cosgrove and Daniels 1988), others suggest that people have an evolutionary predisposition that underlies our aesthetic preferences for different landscapes and landscape features. This view maintains that appreciation of beauty in the landscape is something imbedded deep in the human psyche, a remnant from when our distant ancestors placed value on certain attributes of the landscape because they were associated with acquisition of needed resources, and hence survival (Appleton 1975; Kaplan 1987, 1989; Orians 1986). While people from different cultures may hold somewhat different conceptions of landscape beauty (Hull and Revell 1989; Yang and Kaplan 1990), it is remarkable how consistent public assessments of natural environments, in terms of scenic quality, have been found to be across many different cultures (Parsons and Daniel 2002), which tends to support the evolutionary hypothesis for landscape preferences. Settlements located in places of spectacular natural scenery, and where the beauty of the natural environment harmonize with architectural forms, tend to be places said to possess desirable character (Hough 1990). In contrast, places that are visually removed from their natural surroundings, for example by development that blocks views of natural features, have been associated with erosion of place character (Hough 1990; Kunstler 1993). A study by the author (Green 1999) of community perceptions of town character in one small, Australian coastal town found ‘natural beauty’ to be the quality most strongly associated with the community’s conception of desirable ‘town character’, which was linked by the respondents to a range of natural landscape features.

Human scale in the landscape, and intimately scaled environments, is another attribute that has often been associated with places said to ‘have a lot of character’. In contrast, inappropriately scaled (out of scale) features are often cited as detracting from desirable expressions of place-character (Kunstler 1993). Harmonious scale relationships, as made manifest by the relative size of environmental features to one another, and between place

20

features and people, have most often been cites, particularity with respect to place-character as manifested in smaller settlements. Jakle (1987; p. 76) defines human scale in the landscape as ‘… the sense that places belong to people, that the objects of place are person oriented. Scale in architecture is appropriately defined when building components relate harmoniously to the human form, building up, as it were, from the pedestrian in the street.’ In a more geographic sense, desirable scale is where ‘… parts of a city [or town], integrate hierarchically so that people can comprehend a relationship to a geographic whole’ (Jakle 1987; pp. 77–78). Places that are said to have desirable character typically are those that also exhibit harmonious scale relationships between elements at different levels of scale. In this sense, scale, for example, as it is manifest in small town settings, would be experienced at the most detailed level in the facade of buildings, or in the surface detail of other built or natural features. At the next level it relates to specific built and natural features in their entirety in relationship to neighboring elements. Geographic relationships of one part of a town to other parts represent a still higher level in this hierarchy of scale relationships. Still higher levels are relationships between an entire town and others in a region, its relations to the country in which it is located, and ultimately to the entire planet. In another part of the study by the author cited above (Green 2000a), that explored community perceptions of town-character in an Australia coastal town, a large-scale resort complex, a Club Mediterranean resort, was being proposed, which provoked massive protests by the community as it was felt that the development would be too large in scale and in stark contrast to the small scale of other built elements in the town and, therefore, would be ‘out-of-character’. Spatial and visual diversity is yet another environmental attribute that has been linked with desirable expressions of place character. Environments that lack such diversity, and which are perceived to be visually and spatially ‘monotonous’, are frequently associated with places that are seen to lack

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

distinctive character, which could be said to possess the quality of ‘placelessness’ (Relph 1976). This lack of visual and spatial diversity seems to underlie the increasing trend towards environmental ‘facelessness’ (Herzog et al. 1982; Kaplan 1989) that has been associated with places said to be devoid of distinctive character. Environmental complexity in itself has been shown to be strongly associated with landscape preference in which both too little or too much complexity in a scene have been related with negative assessments while a median level is generally most preferred (Berlyne 1960, 1971, 1974; Kaplan et al. 1972; McCarthy 1979; Wohlwill 1976). The increasing use of standardized, mass-produced building materials and ‘cook book’ physical design solutions is often blamed for loss of diversity in the built environment and associated loss of distinctive place-character (Giuliani and Feldman 1993). The introduction of ‘global’ forms of architecture, which can be defined as architecture that could be anywhere and at the same time nowhere, has also been suggested to be a key factor in the generation of placeless environments (Jencks 1985). 2.2.2

Natural landscapes

Elements of the natural environment, both organic and inorganic, have been identified as particularly instrumental in shaping and establishing place character. Visually distinctive and noticeable features of the natural environment (e.g. local geology, hydrology, vegetation, landforms) are particularly important in this regard, as are places where built features have been successfully integrated with their natural surroundings through maintaining obvious visual links with surrounding areas of undisturbed topography, vegetation, water bodies and other natural elements. Tucson, Arizona, for example, is one place where the city’s visual connection with the desert landscape and the surrounding mountains has often been cited as a vital aspect of its distinctive character (Hough 1990; Saarinen and Cooke 1971). Santiago, Chile, where the Andes Mountains form a dramatic backdrop to the city is yet another example. The importance of the integration of natural landscapes with cultural features has also been cited and supported

2.2

Dimensions of Place Character

by research into landscape preferences. For example, in an early landmark study on public landscape values in northeastern United States, Zube and his colleagues found that the degree of perceived ‘naturalness’ associated with landscapes within predominately natural settings was the single most predictive criterion used by people in determining the perceived compatibility of built elements with those settings (Zube et al. 1974). The Norwegian architect and theorist Norberg-Schulz (1971, 1980) was one of the first scholars to write about the phenomenology of place-character, based on the thoughts of Heidegger. His view was that the character of a place is established through the interaction of both physical elements and more intangible environmental qualities, cultural artifacts and the symbolism that people ascribe to these features. He particularly stressed the contribution of the natural landscape and proposed a hierarchy in which natural landscapes are seen as dominant and built elements subordinate in expressing the character of many places, particularly within the context of smaller settlements. In differentiating between natural environments and their influence in shaping place character, Norberg-Schulz proposed a taxonomy of four general landscape types, which he labeled the ‘romantic’, ‘cosmic’, ‘classical’ and ‘complex’. Romantic landscapes are those possessing a high degree of diversity and detail, such as can be found in diverse forest landscapes. Cosmic landscapes are characterized by homogeneity and expansiveness and do not tend to have obvious, individually distinctive sub-parts. This type he associates, as an example, with many desert landscapes. In contrast, the classical landscape type is described as a varied combination of distinct and individual parts, which while possessing a high degree of diversity, still retains a sense of balance, spatial order and continuity. This type of landscape is found in places where buildings and their natural settings are harmoniously integrated. Finally, the complex landscape type is defined as containing various combinations of the other three. He describes differences between these landscape types as a function of the interrelationships

21

between objects, spatial order, qualities of light, and time, made manifest in the environment. The landscape type in which a smaller settlement is located will largely determine its character, providing that obvious visual links with the natural surroundings have been maintained. Character is formed, in his view, through combinations of geographic location, spatial configuration and physical characteristics of the built environment, with different combinations resulting in varying expressions and degrees of place character. Variety, as opposed to monotony, is seen as a critical attribute of places and reinforces a strong expression of character. Variety, in this regard, can be manifested in the variation in the relief of surfaces apparent on the facade of buildings, or at a larger scale in variations with respect in topography and patterns of vegetation across landscapes. Research exploring preferences for various landscapes and landscape types has consistently found that natural, as opposed to built environments, are typically preferred by the general public as aesthetically more pleasing, with a natural to built continuum of preference being identified, such that the more natural the landscape is perceived to be, the more it is preferred (Daniel 2000, 2001). Both the content (conveyed meanings) and form (composition of forms, lines, colors, textures, etc.), associated with natural environments, are thought to underlie this aesthetic predilection for natural environments. Perhaps the most convincing illustration of positive responses to natural environments can be found in the results of research conducted by Roger Ulrich at Texas A & M University in which he found that by merely viewing natural, vegetated landscapes, people can obtain both physical and psychological benefits, and experience a greater sense of well-being in contrast to viewing urban scenes. This research (Ulrich 1981, 1986; Ulrich et al. 1991, 1996) demonstrated that people in stressful situations who are shown slides of natural vegetated scenes, compared to scenes of urban and predominately built environments, will exhibit significantly lower physiologically apparent stress responses (by measuring brain wave activity). In one seminal study, he even demonstrated that viewing natural, vegetated landscapes, as opposed to built settings, could result in increased

22

healing time after surgery. In that study (Ulrich 1984) patients within the context of a hospital in the United States were found to have shorter postsurgical recovery times and shorter hospital stays after having gallbladder operations when their rooms looked out to a landscape dominated by a park-like setting of grass and trees, compared with those patients who only had views of adjacent buildings with no visible vegetation. Other studies (Herzog and Gale 1996) have found that the presence of natural features in the context of predominately built settings increased overall landscape preference, particularly if the natural features were perceived to be well maintained. Research undertaken by Joan Nassauer (1995), at the University of Michigan, found that people prefer natural, vegetated landscapes in the context of built settings if those features appeared to be well cared for and maintained, or in her words display obvious ‘cues to care’. It should be noted, however, that over time this predilection for natural over built environments has varied and indeed, has in the past, been reversed. For example, early settlers of the United States so feared nature, perceiving it as a source of danger, that windows on early colonial houses were designed to be small to limit views of the natural landscape beyond (Nash 1967). This is in stark contrast to today’s aesthetic predilection for natural scenery and a desire for views of natural landscapes from one’s home, as illustrated by the design of contemporary houses located in predominately natural settings where windows are designed to allow maximum views of nearby nature. This is also reflected in the monetary value of property, which in some places, such as coastal settings, is often strongly linked with the extent and quality of views of natural landscapes obtainable from the property. One only needs to look at differences in the cost of properties that provide spectacular panoramic views of the sea compared to those in the same setting, but lacking such views. In many landscapes vegetation forms the most visually dominant element associated with the natural world and, indeed, has been found to be instrumental in how people conceptualize place character. Preferences with respect to

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

various types of vegetation, and associated formal attributes, in a variety of landscape settings, have been studied rather extensively (Balling and Falk 1982; Herzog 1987, 1989; Kaplan and Kaplan 1982, 1989; Kaplan 1977a,b, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1989; Nassauer 1995; Sommer and Summit 1995; Summit and Sommer 1999). Some of the most innovative research in this area has tried to link perceptual responses to landscapes with human evolutionary predispositions for certain landscape setting types and the forms and patterns of vegetation that make up those landscapes (Appleton 1975, 1990; Orians 1986; Kaplan and Kaplan 1982). Other researchers, as previously mentioned, maintain that aesthetic responses to landscapes are due to cultural conditioning (Daniels and Cosgrove 1988). Yet still others, such as the geographer Jay Appleton, suggest that evolutionary predispositions for landscape preferences underpin cultural conditioning (Appleton 1975). The value of vegetation in the landscape has often been attributed to the psychological, physical and spiritual restorative effects that it can have for humans. The most dramatic positive effects are attributed to ‘wilderness’ landscapes and their ability to impart a sense of inspiration, tranquility, peace, and at the most profound level, a deep spiritual feeling of integration and oneness. Contact with nature in this way can result in a sometimes profound sense of renewal (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). It has been suggested that the same types of affective responses related to the experience of wilderness landscapes can also be elicited within the context of less than pristine and/or isolated places that would not normally be associated with these types of landscapes, suggesting that the concept of wilderness is as much a perceptual quality as it is a condition of the landscape itself. The concept of ‘extent’ is also important with respect to people’s responses to natural, vegetated landscapes, as can be witnessed in relation to large forested areas, such as national parks, and other wilderness settings where the interrelatedness of landscape elements is perceived to be part of a much greater whole. In smaller natural settings, like parks or gardens, the experience

2.2

Dimensions of Place Character

of extent can be encouraged by the design of the landscape where the actual size of a space can be made to seem greater than it actually is. This can be created through such devises as ‘the barrowed landscape’, as used in the design of Japanese gardens. While perhaps not as profound in its impact as experiences of wilderness environments, studies on the positive effects of nearby nature within the context of residential areas have also been reported. These studies have shown that people can gain both physical and psychological benefits by merely having natural settings in close proximity to their place of residence (Kaplan 1985). In particular, having trees close to the home environment seems to increase satisfaction for one’s neighborhood and even the mere view of trees from the home can bestow distinct psychological benefits. In one study people who could see trees through their windows reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with their immediate physical and social environment than did people with views dominated by buildings or just expanses of plain grass (Kaplan 1983). Another study (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989) found that areas of natural landscape within urban settings were cognitively ordered into three distinct categories; yards, recreation spaces and natural settings. When respondents were asked what it was that they preferred about the natural settings they most frequently mentioned ‘enjoyment’ of these places, their ‘beauty’ and associated activities. They also reported that having proximity to natural areas provided them with a source of relaxation and improved their general quality of life. This has been suggested to be related to the ability of people to remove themselves from normal everyday environmental settings and ‘get away from it all’. Neighborhood parks and people’s own private gardens can provide places where people, particularly urban dwellers, can escape from their personal worries simply because they are experienced as places that are distinct from their more everyday environments. The natural environment is a powerful vehicle for evoking fascination because of the great diversity and complexity of elements apparent within the natural world. It has been suggested that this complexity is important

23

to the restorative benefits that this contact with natural environments can impart. Kaplan (1989) describes this as ‘soft fascination’, seen as a psychological response associated with small, less complex natural environments, such as gardens. The suggestion is that even non-dramatic natural processes, such as seasonal changes in vegetation, the motion of leaves in the wind, and the sounds of birds can result in reflective states of mind and spontaneous aesthetic responses to natural environments that can elicit this sense of fascination for the natural world. A person’s familiarity with the environment has also been associated with preferences for vegetation in the landscape, however, this is a complex issue and the research is still contradictory. There have been studies that have found that foreign and exotic landscape scenes were preferred over native settings (Kaplan and Herbert 1987), which may suggest a role for a sense of novelty with respect to aesthetic experiences of ‘exotic’ natural places. On the other hand, other studies have found that people have strong preferences for landscapes that they are most familiar with (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). Orians (1986) suggests that there will be trade-offs between the sense of comfort provided by familiar landscapes and the excitement generated by new environments. In some cross-cultural landscape preference studies, strong preferences have been noted within relatively similar cultures, while preferences are sometimes less comparable for more dissimilar cultures (Kaplan and Herbert 1987). However, in most other studies no such cultural differences can be demonstrated (Ulrich 1993). For example, in a study of scenic landscape preferences conducted in the small coastal town of Lorne, Australia (one of the seven towns that was studied in the research reported in Chapters 3 and 4), a high correlation was found between both permanent and seasonal residents of the town, and between American landscape architecture students (Zube and Mills 1976). In other studies people with rural backgrounds were found to be significantly different to those with an

24

urban background in terms of preferences for natural landscapes (Tips and Savasdisara 1986; Williams and Cary 2002). Spatial configuration and formal attributes of vegetation also seem to play an instrumental role in determining how people categorize natural landscapes. Some studies suggest that the degree of openness and the presence of definite spatial definition are key structural attributes associated with how people mentally categorize natural landscape scenes. Open spaces that lack spatial definition tend to not be preferred as much as relatively open settings that have clear definition (Appleton 1975). Within the context of forest landscapes, two distinct categories consistently emerge; forests which appear impenetrable and have views blocked by vegetation, which are typically least preferred, and those having visual openings and smoother ground planes, due to a lack of underbrush, where preferences tend to be highest (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). In more culturally modified environments, preferences have been identified for park-like settings that convey a sense of orderliness, relative openness due to smooth ground surfaces (e.g. grass) and clearly discernable spatial definition. Park-like landscapes also reflect the structure of, and have obvious associations with, savanna-type landscapes, which often receive high preference ratings in landscape preference studies (Orians 1986). Habitats in which our ancient ancestors selected in which to reside would have been those that provided them with multiple opportunities for obtaining food (ones that offered the possibility of fruitful hunting and gathering), water and secure shelter. Preferences for these types of places might also be expected to be held by contemporary humans. This evolutionary perspective is related to what has been called Habitat Theory (Orians 1986; Orians and Heerwagen 1992; Heerwagen and Orians 1993), which tries to explain preferences for natural landscapes based on the belief that savannatype landscapes, defined as those that have ‘scattered trees and copses in a matrix of grassland’, will evoke more positive emotional responses because they represent the habitat type in which early humans evolved.

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

This theory maintains that people’s predilection for parks, many of which typically have similar spatial attributes as savanna-type landscapes, and occur in all cultures, supports this proposition. As Orians (1986; p. 11) points out: Parks and gardens in all cultures are neither closed forests nor open grasslands. In addition, great pains are taken in the creation of parks and gardens to create water or the illusion of water or to enhance the quality of existing water resources.

In typical African savanna landscapes, water is less abundant than in more heavily-forested environments and hence game, particularly in dry seasons, would be expected to be found more often near water in this type of landscape. Humans would have selected habitats with water bodies nearby. It may be no mere coincidence that those landscapes that contain water in various forms have consistently been found to be the most highly preferred in landscape preference studies. A seminal study by Balling and Falk (1982) hypothesized that children would prefer savanna-type landscapes to other landscape types as predicted by Habitat Theory. They predicted that because children would have less cultural conditioning, and have had less experience living in other biomes (children participating in the study all lived in the north-eastern United States) they would show an innate preference for savanna landscape settings. In that study, photographs of various landscapes from different biomes – tropical rainforest, deciduous forest, coniferous forest, East African savanna and desert – were shown to a sample of children of various age groups, as well as adults, who were asked to rate the different landscape scenes by preference. The results showed that the 8 and 11 year old groups preferred scenes from tropical savanna landscapes over deciduous/conifer vegetated ones – the landscape typically found in their local environment. Children over 15 years of age and all the adults showed an equal preference for their regional landscape type (composed of deciduous/conifer vegetation) and tropical savanna landscapes. Photographs of savanna landscapes taken

2.2

Dimensions of Place Character

during the dry season were rated somewhat lower by this group than the well watered landscapes. Least preferred by all respondents were tropical rainforests and deserts. The researchers also asked the respondents within the 6 age groups (8, 11, 15, 18, 35 and over 70 years old) which places they would like to ‘live in’ or ‘visit’ the most of the five different biomes. The 8 year olds rated the savanna landscapes the highest in terms of both living in and visiting, and all other groups rated the dryer-season scenes as less desirable than the greener, well-watered savanna landscapes. Rock formations that provide elevated locations from which one can obtain views over the landscape, or prospect, would have also been important to our ancient ancestors while in pursuit of game. This Prospect Refuge Theory (Appleton 1990) attributes our preoccupation with monumental landscapes, such as visually dramatic geological formations, often preserved in national parks, with the ability to provide expansive views over the landscape, thus increasing prospect opportunities – something that would have been valuable to the survival of our ancient ancestors. An important aspect of human behavior is the need to gather information about the environment in order to facilitate behavior. The Theory of Affordances (Gibson 1979) suggests that we prefer things in the environment that are useful in some way to fulfilling our needs. Applied to landscape appreciation, people would be expected to spontaneously assess scenes in terms of what they can do in, or get from, the landscape. For example, an open, yet treed, landscape defined by landmarks would facilitate accessibility and provide spatial definition that would aid in orientation and wayfinding. Such a landscape might be expected to be preferred over ones without obvious landmarks, where one would have a greater possibility of getting lost. Information Processing Theory (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Kaplan et al. 1998) tries to explain landscape preferences based on the premise that

25

humans have an ingrained evolutionary predisposition to gather and process information from the environment that will give them advantages for survival. This theory proposes that when viewing a landscape people will unconsciously seek out information about the environment that would have, in our ancestor’s distant past, been necessary for making strategic decisions, particularly during hunting. Central to this theory are the concepts of coherence and complexity, both of which are related to understanding and exploration of the environment in two dimensions, and legibility and mystery, related to understanding and exploration of the environment in three dimensions. Coherence and legibility are associated more with understanding the landscape, while complexity and mystery are related to exploration. The Kaplans maintain that the presence of these attributes in the landscape, and interaction between key attributes, plays a primary role in determining landscape preferences. Kaplan (1989) found that the most highly-preferred landscape scenes are those that convey a sense of ‘mystery’. A scene containing mystery is visually inviting because it holds the promise that one might be able to gather more information, or learn something more about the environment, if one where to venture further into the scene. It suggests the promise of information that is available beyond what is immediately visible. Mystery evokes a sense of curiosity and entices the viewer to imagine, or anticipate, what it might be like if they were to explore the landscape further. This can be evoked, for example, where a bend in a path is visible in a scene or where a distant view is partially obscured by fog or mist. Even slight landform variations can imply a sense of mystery in the landscape. Unlike complexity there seems to be no apparent threshold of preference with respect to increasing levels of mystery – more seems to be better (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Appleton 1990). A landscape scene that is able to trigger one’s imagination and entice one to want to travel further into it may represent a recurring archetypal symbol, one that has been frequently depicted in landscape paintings in the past (Wilson 1984).

26

Signs of human intervention apparent in the landscape are also thought to increase preference for landscapes if the intervention signifies human care for the environment, or in Nassauer’s words exhibit ‘cues to care’ (Nassauer 1995). Such perceptual cues were found to be related to the appearance of neatness and tidiness of the environment, as opposed to messiness. As Nassauer has demonstrated, at least for people living in the Midwest of the United States, people have strong preferences for landscapes that appear neat and tidy. However, many highly bio-diverse, and hence valuable, ecosystems do, indeed, look messy. This model suggests that value for the most pristine, intact; yet messy-looking ecosystems, can be increased, which will indirectly help in conserving them, if they are placed within what Nassauer refers to as ‘orderly frames’. Within Australian Aboriginal culture there is a strong and ancient tradition of manipulating the landscape through fire. While this practice is advantageous for hunting purposes, as it encourages creation of grazing land and provides forage for game, aboriginal people may have also aesthetically preferred the savanna-like landscape structure created by this practice of intentional burning. This could be attributed to the fact that such fire-managed landscapes will be more comfortable to physically move through, and would allow for greater visibility, but they would also appear less messy than if they were left unmanaged and it is possible that this too may have contributed to aesthetic appreciation. The notion of biophilia, from the Latin ‘love of nature’, has been hypothesized to be an ingrained human trait. E.O. Wilson, who first coined the term, defines biophilia as ‘the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms’ (Wilson 1993; p. 31). To find the natural world inherently beautiful and interesting, which would encourage people to explore and learn more about the environment, would have been advantageous to early human in terms of survival (Kellert 1993). As previously discussed, both the mental and physiological benefits resulting from human contact with natural settings (Kaplan 1983; Ulrich 1993), and aesthetic

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

preferences for purely natural scenes over culturally modified ones, seem to be shared by humans regardless of their cultural or educational backgrounds. These findings suggest that this ‘love of nature’ may be closely tied to the physical and emotional benefits that humans can gain through having contact with natural environments. In light of the current environmental crisis this notion of an innate tendency for people to have affective links with the natural world may be as much tied to human survival in the future as it has been in the distant past (Shepard 1993). If there is, indeed, a relationship between ecological function and perceived beauty, as some believe (Gobster 1999; Orians 1986), than environments that are ecologically healthy would be expected to be preferred over those that are less healthy. This notion, first suggested in 1949 by Aldo Leopold (1981) in his seminal book A Sand Country Almanac, and more recently used to support the notion of an ‘ecological aesthetic’ (Gobster 1995, 1999), maintains that landscapes of high ecological value will inherently be aesthetically pleasing. As Leopold puts it, ‘A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise’ (Leopold 1981; pp. 224–225). Such an ecological aesthetic is thought to be qualitatively different to the more immediate emotional responses that people derive from experiencing scenically attractive landscapes, as it seems to require more cognitive involvement, while the beauty response seems to be more purely affective in nature. The ecological aesthetic also requires a more personal interaction with the environment (Gobster 1995, 1999). Orians (1986) maintains that the pleasurable experiences that can be derived from experiencing beautiful landscapes are also a product of our evolution because they would hold survival value simply because ‘positive’ responses to a landscape perceived to be beautiful would be one that invites further exploration, while ‘negative’ responses would result in avoidance. Trees and forests are vital to our survival and, as such, have been employed as symbols imbued with cultural meanings reflecting both their functional

2.2

Dimensions of Place Character

use and aesthetic value. Research on landscape preferences has repeatedly found that people generally have strong preferences for trees (Kaplan 1989; Sommer and Summet 1995) and that certain tree forms and shapes of trees are more highly preferred than others. It has been hypothesized that those tree forms characteristic of places in which humans evolved, savanna-type landscapes, will be the most preferred because deep down in our psyches we still hold attachments to these types of landscapes. Indeed, research has shown high preferences for the types of tree forms associated with savanna-type landscapes (Sommer and Summet 1995; Summit and Sommer 1999; Orians 1986). As previously discussed, according to Habitat Theory (Orians 1986) humans have an ingrained evolutionary predisposition to like landscapes similar to those that occur in East Africa, where early humans are thought to have evolved. These landscapes are composed of trees with particular characteristics. For example, various species of Acacias are associated with savanna landscapes and these trees are typically composed of shorter trunks relative to their height, are more horizontal in form with wide, spreading canopies and have fine-textured foliage. This theory predicts that humans will prefer these tree forms and the spatial arrangements associated with savanna types of landscapes. This was tested in one study by Orians (1986) who used black and white photographs of landscape scenes and asked groups of people from Argentina, Australia and the Untied States to rate the depicted scenes according to their preferences. The results revealed a preference for moderately sized trees with moderately dense canopies with bifurcated trunks that branch close to the ground (easier for climbing). These tree forms correspond to the actual characteristics of trees typically found in savanna-type landscapes. Other studies have also found preferences for tree forms that reflect savanna type trees, such as Acacia species, with their spreading, horizontal forms (Sommer and Summit 1995; Summit and Sommer 1999), adding further weight to the hypothesis that we have an ingrained, evolutionary predisposition to prefer landscapes and landscape features that are associated with savannatype landscapes. On the other hand, Prospect Refuge Theory, as previously discussed (Appleton 1975), suggests that trees, which can provide oppor-

27

tunities for refuge or for gaining prospect, will be preferred over other types of trees. Trees with large canopies can provide shelter as well as places from which one could obtain unobserved views, or prospect, over the landscape and would be expected to be preferred tree forms. Flowers are distinctive features in a generally limited palette of greens associated with the color of foliage, and due to their bright colors, tend to stand out in the landscape. Evolutionary biologists view flowers as being able to signal to animals the availability of food. In plant communities that are species diverse, flowers also provide differentiation between species that may be difficult to determine just by their foliage. Habitat Theory suggests that for our ancient ancestors, visual evidence of flowering plants in the landscape would have been associated with productive landscapes where they might find resources for survival – e.g. food. Based on this theory, the visible presence of flowers in the landscape would be expected to be associated with preferred landscapes. Indeed, people do place very high value on flowers as witnessed by their desire to plant them in and around their dwellings, and in public parks. The custom of bringing flowers to people who are ill may reflect this ingrained feeling that somehow their presence can increase human well-being. The presence of flowers in hospital rooms may even increase recovery time. Certainly they are known to elevate people’s mood and a more positive emotional mood does encourage health, which may stem from the primeval evolutionary connections that our ancestors had formed with the natural world carried over to the way contemporary humans experience the landscape (Orians and Heerwagen 1992). 2.2.3 A social dimension The presence of groups of people, and their activities, has often been cited as an important attribute associated with places that have a strong sense of place (Appleyard 1979; Harper 1987; Lee 1982; Thompson 1991). This typically manifests itself both in terms of the number of people and the nature of their behaviors occurring at a place, particularly in the context

28

of more urbanized settings. It has been suggested that streets of some cities merely provide a stage for the social and business life that is integral to their distinctive characters (Hough 1990). A sense of community, or having meaningful involvement with other people within a particular geographic location, also seems to be central to many people’s experience of place (Hummon 1992). The concept of ‘embeddedness’, defined as ‘a sense of belonging in, being part of, and feeling at home in the residential environs’ (Feldman 1996; p. 426), has likewise been associated with places thought to possess a strong sense of place. As Relph (1976; p. 34) observes, ‘… places are ‘public’ – they are created and known through common experiences and involvement in common symbols and meanings.’ In contrast, the presence of too many people in a place, or crowding, has often been equated with negative place experiences and over stimulation. There seems to be an optimal number of people that can be present in any given space at any given time for a desirable sense of place to be established. Exceeding the ‘social carrying capacity’ of a place will lead to overcrowding, which is typically considered to be a negative situation (Whyte 1980). However, it has been suggested that crowding is as much, if not more, a perceptual phenomenon as it is a purely physical measure of the density of people in a particular space and what is considered to be crowding will vary between cultures and individuals. The type of people associated with a particular setting is another social attribute often associated with the atmosphere of places. This relates to the kinds of people who frequent a place, conveyed through how they appear and their behavior. The more consistently a particular type of person is associated with a particular location, the more their presence will be instrumental in terms of expressing the character of the place. The distinction between people who are actively involved within a particular setting and those who are passively observing the activities occurring in the place is another important attribute associated with the character of some places. It has been suggested that well-functioning public places should provide opportunities for both ‘doers’ and ‘watchers’ (Steele 1981).

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

The concept of the ‘behavior setting’ is also important in understanding the contribution of visible social interaction to the character of places. Behavior settings are defined as stable patterns of behavior occurring in specific places and consist of standing patterns of behavior, a specific environment or environmental milieu, and a congruent relationship between a specific environment and a standing behavior pattern, or a ‘synomorphy’ (Barker 1968; p. 19). Behavior settings may also be linked to form networks of activity and larger behavior setting systems. The connotative meanings associated with such settings, and the relationships between them, seem to be an integral component in the expression of the character of many places. 2.2.4

Change and a temporal dimension

It has been suggested that time as made manifest in environments may be as important as spatial attributes in determining the character of places. Historical elements and recurring events in the natural and social environment, that signal the passage of time, have been frequently associated with environments that possess distinctive place-character. Cyclical changes, such as changing seasons, and progressive changes, for example as manifested by historic features, can both express a sense of environmental time critical to a sense of place (Hull and McCarthy 1988; Jackson 1995; Lynch 1972, 1976; Parkes and Trift 1980). Local celebrations that demarcate time, recurrent place rituals, such as pilgrimages, and recurrent patterns of behavior in people’s everyday lives have also been suggested to be instrumental in reinforcing a sense of place (Low 1992; Relph 1976; Seamon and Nordin 1980; Tuan 1974a). Kevin Lynch (1972; p. 206), writing in What Time Is This Place, advocates the preservation of landscape features from various times within the history of a place with the aim of creating obvious temporal contrasts, or what he refers to as ‘temporal collages’. He suggests that such contrasts can lend a valued ‘time depth’ to places important in defining their character. The aim is to preserve a record of the past, thereby helping people

2.2

Dimensions of Place Character

form a sense of continuity with what came before, express the flow of time evident in the environment, and create meaningful temporal and associated spatial contrasts within the environment. Empirical studies focusing on the perceptual classification of landscape features, based on landscape preferences, have found that the age of buildings, independent of their function, seems to be a salient dimension in how people conceptualize them (Herzog et al. 1982; Kaplan 1989). This may be related to a current Western cultural bias favoring the preservation of historic features in the landscape, as witnessed by the nostalgia for historic districts within towns in Australia, Europe and the United States, and the extensive legislation aimed at preserving historic environments. In contrast, people in developing countries often prefer more modern environments to older ones, which they may feel are simply outdated and in need of replacement (Chokor 1990; Rapoport 1982). Likewise, Lynch (1972) has suggested that, at least in American culture, that older landscape features will typically not be valued based on their age until they are in the order of 50 years old or more. Anything newer will simply be perceived to be run down, obsolete or out of style. The fact is that the longer features are part of an environment the more likely people will be to develop emotional attachments to them, and hence incorporate them into their conceptions of the character of those places. Newer features would not be expected to be incorporated into place images as readily, simply because people would have had less time to get cognitively familiar with them. The massive public criticism that followed the building of the Eiffel Tower is a classic example of a negative response to new additions to a familiar environment (Benevolo 1971). However, over time such landscape features can become integral to the character of a place, as indeed the Eiffel Tower has become to that of Paris. A recurrent theme in the literature is that as people become familiar with places over time, and as they develop a sense of continuity with them, they tend to experience them in a different light (Relph 1976; Tuan 1974b, 1980). The suggestion here, and as previously discussed, is that emotional ties and place attachments will increase as a function of increased environmental

29

familiarity and such attachments are integral to sense of place. And as Seamon (1989; p. 284) suggests: ‘One of the most significant aspects of emotional links with place, especially the more habitual emotional dimensions, is that once forged (usually in childhood) they are difficult to break.’ One would, therefore, assume that people would develop greater attachment to places as their length of residency in a place increases and as they gain more familiarity with the place. Due to such familiarity, and resultant place-based associations with the past, long-term residents may experience a place as highly meaningful while those who are less familiar may not be aware of such significance. This can occur when places, which may appear simply as derelict to outsiders, may, to insiders be experienced as highly meaningful (Rowles 1980, 1083). As Relph (1976; p. 31) suggests, ‘… as the residents’ attachment becomes more pronounced, their home area or place changes its character for them, both because of a growing intensity of geographical and social knowledge and especially because of a growing intensity of involvement and commitment’. Tuan (1974a; p. 415), as previously mentioned, refers to this form of sense of place as ‘fields of care’ and suggests that those who have lived in one location for a very long time may associate it with memories ‘reaching back beyond the indelible impressions of their own individual childhoods to common lores of bygone generations’. He (Tuan 1980) maintains that the sense of place of long-term residents of a place will be qualitatively different to those people less familiar with the same place. However, others have suggested that people who are unfamiliar with a place are more likely to be consciously aware of the differences between places, particularly with respect to differences based on aesthetic criteria (Relph 1976). As Tuan (1974b; p. 243) has observed, being totally immersed in a place ‘means to open one’s pores … to all its qualities, but it also means ignorance of the fact that one’s place as a whole has a personality distinct from that of all other places’. Research by Feldman (1988) suggests that people can even form strong emotional attachments to types of settlements and that such attachments can be transferred to places with similar character. This suggests that a person’s sense of place will be influenced by their past experiences, either through length of residency or through previous

30

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

association with similar types of places, which raises an important question – How does increasing familiarity with a place, or a type of place, over time, affect a person’s perception of its character? 2.2.5

Distinctiveness and uniqueness of place

The degree to which a place is said to have ‘a lot of character’ is often strongly associated with how distinctive the environmental, social and cultural features are that distinguish it from other places. These are features that are somehow unique, different, unusual, special or rare to a given locality (Garnham 1985; Jakle 1987; Lynch 1976; Seddon 1979). Environments that are said to have highly distinctive place character typically exhibit elements that are unique to the local environment – e.g. local ecology, geology, and vernacular architecture – in contrast to places that are environmentally and culturally homogeneous and lack a strong identity, perceived as ‘faceless’ places. These are places that could be anywhere and yet nowhere (Hough 1990). As mentioned, a person’s familiarity with a place can influence how unique they perceive the place to be. To those more familiar with the place it may seem commonplace because they take its uniqueness for granted while to those less familiar the same place may be perceived to be highly unique precisely because of their unfamiliarity with it. As Tuan (1974a; p. 236) suggests, ‘To identify wholly with the ambience of a place is to lose the sense of its unique identity, which is revealed only when one can also see it from the outside.’ How distinctive one experiences their home environment is thought to be associated with one’s sense of self-identity (Feldman 1996) related to what has been referred to as place-identity (Proshansky et al. 1983). As Feldman (1996; p. 426) suggests the home environment is often perceived to be one that ‘… is unequalled and irreplaceable.’ The cultural geographer Amos Rapoport (1985) stresses the degree of distinctiveness in meanings, social relationships, activities and cultural traditions as displayed in a place, its physical qualities and a person’s length

of residency in the place as key attributes to understanding place-character and how it will be experienced. The degree of congruence between members of similar cultural groups in terms of what they feel are key components of a place is thought to be particularly important to this understanding. It is the combinations and redundancy of place features, and their associated attributes, which are seen to be most important in defining the distinctiveness of places, which is instrumental in defining their character. The greater degree of overlap and redundancy of features that are unique to a place, the stronger the sense of place it will engender, and the greater likelihood that groups of people will agree that the particular setting possesses a particular recognizable character. He suggests that the features that are most strongly associated with the character of a place will be those that are culturally defined and communicated though perceptual cues. These cues can be fixed, semi-fixed or non-fixed, built or natural features, or obvious social and behavioral characteristics of the people found in a particular place. He maintains that when such perceptual cues are consistently present within a given locality, assuming they are culturally appropriate, and a certain degree of redundancy is established, this will determine the degree to which a place will be experienced as possessing a particular character. It is the degree of perceived distinctiveness of physical elements, which is seen to be most important in defining this character, and this will be related to their visibility, movement, uniqueness and degree of contrast of the features with their surroundings. The greater the perceived distinctiveness of a feature the more likely people will attach meanings to it, reinforcing a place’s character. He also suggests that clear demarcation between zones of distinctive character will help strengthen the character of each zone and the likelihood that people will recognize them as such. Sense of place is, therefore, reinforced by obvious transitions and contrasts between areas that possess definite characters. Places that possess little differentiation, or uniqueness, over geographic space are thought to be less likely to be perceived as having distinctive and meaningful character. The distinctiveness of landscape elements will be strongly associated with their degree of physical contrast, either in form, color, shape, scale, or

2.2

Dimensions of Place Character

meaning, in relation to their context. What has been referred to as ‘collative variables’, which include incongruity, ambiguity and conflict, are useful in understandings how landscape features are perceived to be distinctive. As defined by Berlyne (1974; p. 141) collative variables ‘involve comparison, thus response to degree and nature of similarity or difference, between stimulus elements that may be present together or at different times.’ The greater the contrast between landscape features, the more likely they will be perceived to be distinctive and the greater the degree they may contribute to place-character. Donald Appleyard (1969), in research that he did within the new (at the time) city of Ciudad Guayana in Venezuela, using cognitive mapping techniques, identified four characteristics related to the distinctiveness of urban features critical to the formation of the place images of the inhabitants as they developed over time. These include a feature’s physical form, its visibility within the landscape (particularly from circulation corridors), its function as a behavior setting and its cultural significance. The degree of visible physical movement of features was found to be very important, as was their contour, size, shape and surface treatment. Landmark features, that are distinctive elements in the landscape due to their scale, form, symbolic meaning or other characteristics, are by definition distinctive. For example, church buildings often are perceived to be distinctive landmark features in the landscape, which is achieved through contrasts of their physical forms with their environmental context, and which is used to signal that they are special, sacred places (Rapoport 1982). The concept of ‘incongruity’, as defined by Berlyne (1974; p. 145), is the simultaneous combination of elements that are unlikely to occur together and is related to people’s expectations. It reflects the difference between features that one expects to occur within a given context and what actually does occur. This suggests that landscape features, which are perceived to be incongruent with the established character of a place, may be perceived to be ‘out of character’. Yet some degree of incongruity can be associated with distinctiveness of place features and may support the character of a place.

31

This is reminiscent of figure/ground relationships discussed in Gestalt psychology where distinctive features in the landscape represent figure elements while their environmental context represents the ground (Arnheim 1974). A person’s attention tends to focus initially on those features that contrast with their contextual setting, and thus are visually distinct. Research in this area has suggested that people will tend to mentally accentuate differences in elements that display some formal ambiguities, while minimizing and simplifying less pronounced differences, thus accentuating their distinctiveness. These processes are refereed to as leveling and sharpening. In both instances, people are trying to make their mental image as clear as possible. In leveling the tendency is to simplify the image ‘by such devices as unification, enhancement of symmetry, reduction of structural features, repetition, dropping of non-fitting detail, elimination of obliqueness. Sharpening enhances differences, stresses obliqueness’ (Arnheim 1974; p. 67). A possible implication of this is that people’s concepts of the character of a place may involve both the accentuation of landscape features, which would be those that are distinctive and stand out from their context, while simplifying less contrasting contextual elements. The tensions created between the interplay of distinctive features and contextual ones may be integral to the expression of distinctive place-character. There most likely will be an optimal range with respect to the degree to which a feature is perceived to be distinctive and associated with desirable place character or perceived to be ‘out-of-character’. Too much change and variability in an environment may evoke uncomfortable levels of arousal (stress, over stimulation, etc.) while not enough may be associated with ‘ordinary’, ‘monotonous’, and ‘boring’ environments that lack enough stimulation. The idea is to achieve a balance between distinctive, attention-getting features and their contextual settings in establishing desirable expressions of place character. 2.2.6

Symbolic meaning

Places and place-features can convey symbolic meaning if they represent or typify objects, ideas or events related to specific localities. Such place-

32

based features can function as symbols of who we are (Hull et al. 1994; Proshansky et al. 1983) and where we are – our sense of place (Tuan 1974a,b, 1977, 1980). As Relph (1976; p. 172) suggests: ‘The individual distinctiveness of a place … lies not so much in its exact physical forms and arrangements as in the meanings accorded to it by a community of concerned people.’ Monuments in the landscape frequently function as public symbols representing centers of place-based meaning with some monumental features acquiring such powerful meanings that people across various cultures will share those meanings. Sometimes, however, the content of the meaning may vary between cultures while the features that convey the meaning will remain the same. For example, Uluru (Ayres Rock) in central Australia is an important landscape feature in the mythology of the indigenous people of that area yet the rock itself also functions as an international symbol of the Australian landscape for people worldwide not necessarily associated with the country’s indigenous culture or their spiritual beliefs (Rapoport 1972; Tuan 1974b). Social symbolism conveyed by the physical environment has been frequently associated with places that are said to have a strong sense of place. This occurs where the physical environment and socio-political meaning are most obviously linked. An environment is said to be a social symbol when it is intended or perceived to represent an individual or a social group and when its social meaning is central to its function. Such environmentally mediated social symbols are often associated with expressions of selfidentity, power and status (Appleyard 1979). A recurrent theme in many environmental conflicts involves the opposition of local groups to the introduction of a feature into the landscape that functions as a social symbol, for example when an introduced element is perceived to be foreign to a place. This can occur when building styles that are obviously from another place, which may symbolize the intrusion of ‘outsiders’ are introduced to a place, which people may feel are ‘out of character’. Appleyard (1979) uses the example of the strong opposition by local residents to changes in the built form of San Francisco, and the perceived ‘Manhattanization’ of the city, to illustrate this relationship between social symbolism and place character.

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

Environmental symbols that express individual and group identity constitute one of the most powerful symbolic meanings (Appleyard 1979; Proshansky et al. 1983; Rivlin 1982). Expressions of individual and group personalization can be seen in the marking of places, an instance where symbols of self-identity are projected onto the landscape. Such personalization of place can contribute significantly to the distinctiveness of a place, which will be enhanced by a sense of symbolic ownership that such actions convey (Steele 1981). This personalization of place can also be reinforced by frequent use and familiarity of the place by the person or groups of people associated with the place. If the space is also perceived to be a social symbol, such as a status symbol of those who use it, this will tend to further enhance this sense of perceived ownership and its distinctiveness (Hester 1975). 2.2.7

Emotional responses to the environment

Affective responses to the environment, particularly pleasure, arousal (e.g. peacefulness, excitement), interest (Herzog et al. 1976; Wohlwill 1976) and a sense of belonging (Feldman 1996) have been identified as being strongly involved in sense of place (Low and Altman 1992). Generally, meaningful place character is associated with positive affective responses, while negative responses are associated with more placeless environments. Pleasure and arousal have been found to be the most salient in this regard and seem to represent basic dimensions of affective meaning that form the underlying basis of people’s evaluation of landscapes. These dimensions have been found to be stable across a wide spectrum of people and landscape types (Russell and Pratt 1980; Russell et al. 1981). Support for the importance of the importance of these affective dimensions in the experience of place character was found in one study that explored the perceived character of neighborhoods in Tokyo, where the researcher identified pleasure and arousal as the most important variables underlying people’s evaluation of their individual neighborhoods (Hanyu 1993). In a study conducted by the author that explored community perceptions of town character in an Australia coastal town, as previously cited (Green

2.2

Dimensions of Place Character

1999), pleasure and arousal (expressed, for example, as environments that were perceived to be hectic rather than peaceful) were also found to be the two most dominate affective responses of the residents’ associated with their experiences of the town’s character. 2.2.8 The home environment The home environment has been strongly associated with both a sense of self-identity and sense of place (Buttimer 1980; Cooper 1974; Seamon 1979). Home environments, such as one’s house, neighborhood or town, represent the places that are most likely to be symbol-laden, while places further away from the home environment are less likely to be invested with meaning (Appleyard 1979). This suggests that a sense of place will typically be most intensely experienced in relation to one’s immediate home environment. Key attributes associated with experiences of the ‘home’ include a sense of belonging, comfort, security, happiness, involvement with others and a sense that one’s home locale is unique from other places (Feldman 1996; Sixsmith 1986). The home typically represents the center of a larger network of familiar and significant places within one’s local environment. This extends to include the neighborhood up to one’s ‘home town’ and beyond. These extended home environments can be invested with the same or similar meanings as those associated with the house as home. Appleyard (1979; p. 151) clarifies this idea in suggesting: Our concept of home can be extended beyond the dwelling to our community, city, or nation. The identity of these places depends on its character. We develop a sense of what this character is intuitively; it is the identity of the place. When alien characteristics invade it we experience a sense of loss.

In one study (Pennartz 1986) five underlying themes associated with desirable atmosphere, or character, within the home environment were identified, which included accessibility to others, communication with others, relaxation, freedom to do as one pleases, ability to be occupied and absence of boredom.

33

People often form psychological ties to the area in which their home is located, their immediate neighborhood, and this sense of ‘at-homeness’ (Seamon 1979) relates not only to the physical and geographic setting of one’s dwelling place but also to social interactions with other people, such as friends, neighbors and local merchants within one’s residential environs. The home is also considered to be the setting where place attachments are most intensely formed, which reinforce a sense of place. Seamon (1979) identified five underlying themes associated with attachment to the home and the home area, including a sense of rootedness, appropriation, regeneration, at-easeness and warmth. Feldman conducted an extensive analysis of the literature on attachments to the home environment and identified those attributes where both place attachment and sense of place had been linked. These he describes as (Feldman 1996; p. 426): • ‘Embeddedness’ – the feeling of being at home in a place. This is associated with a sense of belonging and being part of the residential setting. • ‘Community’ – the sense of involvement in a social group which is tied to a specific geographical location. • ‘At-easeness’ – the feeling of being comfortable, unconstrained and relaxed in one’s familiar home setting. • ‘Uniqueness of place’ – the idea that one’s home area is unique and is ‘unequalled and irreplaceable’. • ‘Care and concern for place’ – a sense of commitment, responsibility and caring for the home area. • ‘Unity in identities’ – the integration of self and group identities with the home environment that develop over time. • ‘Bodily orientation’ – the ‘unconscious orientation of the body and bodily routines in the familiar spatio-temporal order of home place.’ • ‘Appropriation’ – the actual or perceived control or possession of the home setting. • ‘Centeredness’ – the sense that the home environment is the center of one’s experiential space and ‘lifeworld’.

34

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

The notion of ‘centeredness’ denotes the relationship between one’s experience of the home place and that of being away from the home, or the home as a point of departure and return. Buttimer (1980) has suggested that the dialectical relationship between one’s home, and what she refers to as one’s ‘horizons of reach’, are essential to a person’s definition of home (and the extension of the home to larger geographic areas) and their sense of place. The experience of the home is seen to be dependent on contrasts between the daily routine of household behaviors and experiences of being away from the home. Case (1996), for example, found evidence to support the idea that people need to get away in order to appreciate the taken-for-granted qualities associated with their home environment. This, he suggests, is indicative of the dialectic relationships between rest and movement, territory and range, security and adventure, which are related to being in, and being away from the home, and which are intimately tied to one’s sense of place. 2.2.9

Neighborhood environments

The home is typically the center of one’s neighborhood and other than the house itself it is the place where one generally feels most ‘at home’. The term ‘neighborhood’ has been variously defined as a spatial area with a specific population size, a purely geographic or spatial unit (particularly areas of homogenous physical character), an area defined by networks of social relationships between residents, an area where interrelated day-today activities are undertaken around the home area or more often some combination of these factors (Revlin 1987; Brower 1996; Downs 1981; Hunter 1974). Haney and Knowles (1978; p. 206) suggest that: … a neighborhood can be thought of as an area that has a distinctive character of flavor to it, so that people know when they are in their neighborhood and are able to tell when they enter another neighborhood

The idea that the neighborhood is a ‘finite, imaginable, and manageable’ place is central to how people conceptualize their neighborhood areas

(Brower 1996; p. 17). A neighborhood will typically possess some environmental and/or social characteristics that differentiate it from other neighborhoods, with highly distinctive and recognizable neighborhoods sometimes even acquiring names. The way administrative organizations, such as planning departments, define neighborhoods may be very different to the way residents actually perceive, mentally construe and use their neighborhoods. This vagueness in definition becomes problematic when geographically discrete neighborhood areas have to be delineated for various planning purposes. For example, as previously discussed, in Australia the state government of Victoria has introduced a planning and design code, Rescode, that requires local planning authorities to assess applications for new residential development in terms of their likely impact on ‘neighborhood character’. How neighborhood areas are to be defined for this purpose is never made clear. However, typically, it will be based on pragmatic concerns such as ideal population sizes, distance to community services and other easily quantifiable criteria. Defining neighborhood areas in this way often ignores the way residents actually experience and use their neighborhoods. Since neighborhoods are essentially ‘social constructs that people project onto physical space’ (Brower 1996; p. 25), and everybody will have a somewhat different conception of what constitutes their neighborhood, it seems that understanding the way residents themselves perceive their neighborhoods would be the best way of defining such areas for planning purposes in terms of defining neighborhood character. The environmental scale associated with a person’s neighborhood will vary, progressing from the home, to a few houses immediately near the home to larger areas encompassing nearby surrounding areas, which will typically share, to varying degrees, similar environmental and/or social characteristics. A neighborhood can even be conceived of a much larger area, such as the area encompassing a small town, which will be shared by others within the same community (Hunter 1974). The area, extent and boundary configurations that define a person’s neighborhood will also vary

2.3 The Validity of Theoretical Propositions

depending upon the geographic context and the social composition of the area population, even within towns of similar size and relatively homogenous geographic characteristics. Neighborhood areas will typically possess definite physical boundaries, in the form of roads, rivers or other physical barriers to movement, which residents will perceptually recognize as the limits of their neighborhood. The form and boundary configurations of neighborhoods can both be shared by residents and vary between people within a single recognized neighborhood area. Residential areas that possess similar physical attributes, such as similar types, mix and intensity of land-use, and the types of features associated with the natural and built environment, will also be instrumental in defining neighborhoods areas. The areas near a person’s home, where they engage in activities, such as walking their dogs, will be instrumental in defining the neighborhood. Such areas can foster interaction between residents if a number of people in the same area engage in similar activities in the same places, thus strengthening their recognition of the area as a neighborhood. Inhabitants of the same neighborhood area will often share a sense of belonging and attachment to the area with others within their same neighborhood. Some sociologists suggest that people with higher levels of education and income will be more inclined to conceive of larger, more dispersed social networks in defining their neighborhoods, while those with lower incomes and less education will tend to conceive of smaller, more concentrated and less diffuse areas, defined by smaller social networks. This group may also have more intense and frequent social contact with their immediate neighbors. People living in areas with a high proportion of children, who tend to be more actively engaged in their neighborhood area, would also be expected to conceive of them as more geographically concentrated. The degree to which residents are satisfied with and/or attached to their neighborhoods has also been linked to the degree of cognitive clarity of neighborhood images, with those holding positive assessments having more clearly defined images, while those who hold more negative assessments

35

have less distinct images (Chaskin 1998). One’s cognitive image of their neighborhood area can also be strengthened if the area is perceived to be under threat, such as when a development is proposed in a neighborhood that the residents feel will be inappropriate. The more defined the perceived neighborhood and its boundaries are the stronger the response will tend be in opposition to the threat posed by such ‘externalities’. 2.3 The Validity of Theoretical Propositions To summarize, a range of place-based features, associated attributes and people’s responses to these features that are thought to be instrumental to places said to have a ‘lot of character’ were discussed in this chapter. It was suggested that the distinctiveness of place-based features is important to their expression of place character. It was also suggested that people will ascribe meanings to salient place features and that these meanings are integral to people’s sense of place, the intensity of which will be reinforced by their attachments to these places and associated features. These attachments tend to become stronger over time and with increased familiarity. The character of a place will also be conveyed by place-based symbolism, including symbols of the self as reflected in the environment. In addition, ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ may identify with different types of features and characteristics of places and/or ascribe different meanings to them in conceptualizing the character of places (Hummon 1992; Relph 1976). Insiders may not be as cognizant of the aesthetic attributes contributing to the character of a place, yet might be more attuned to deeper meanings, while outsiders will tend to form their place images based more on aesthetic and perceptual observations. Furthermore, while people can ascribe different meanings to features associated with the character of a place, and thus have a somewhat different sense of place, social groups, such as smalltown communities can, to a large degree, share a similar sense of place. While there has been a great deal of theoretical speculation in terms of defining the notions of place character and sense of place, the validity

36

of many of these propositions remain untested with respect to how ordinary people actually experience character in the context of their everyday ‘lifeworlds’ (Seamon 1979). Basic research questions that need to be addressed concern the types of features, particularly those that may be potentially amendable to planning control, that are typically involved in experiences of place character as manifest across a range of settlement types. Will people who live in close proximity, such as in small towns, or within the same neighborhood areas, perceive the character of those places in a similar way? If the concepts of place character and sense of place are to be useful for planning and design purposes they must somehow be able to be systematically related to the way that groups of people experience places. However, many of the phenomenological writers argue that sense of place cannot be empirically studied because of the holistic and individual nature of these experiences (Relph 1976). Yet, even within the phenomenological literature some writers have suggested such a systematic approach. For example,

Chapter 2: Notions of Place Character

David Seamon (1989; p. 281) has called for ‘… phenomenological explorations that respect the intangible aspects of genius loci yet identify various underlying dimensions that may help clarify sense of place in more detail and how these discoveries can be applied in terms of design’. Seamon, like most of the phenomenological-orientated writers, also feels that quantitative approaches to studying people’s experiences of places are inappropriate and has suggested that unstructured, qualitative methods should be employed. However, there is a large body of research concerned with assessment of perceptions of environmental quality that have used a range of rigorous, mostly quantitative methods. These methods could be employed for studying more generalized constructs of environmental quality, such a placecharacter and sense of place. Indeed, there have been a few studies that have looked at linking conceptions of environmental quality with environmental features using assessment criteria such as town-character and sense of place (Fishwick and Vining 1992; Garnham 1985; Green 1999; Green et al. 1985b). These studies and methodological approaches are reviewed in the next chapter.

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations This chapter reviews various methodological approaches and research techniques useful for conducting studies on people’s perceptions of, and preferences for, landscapes. This is followed by a review of some past studies that have used these types of methods to explore public perceptions of place character and its transformation in the context of small town environments. Finally, details on the methodology developed for a series studies exploring community perceptions of place character in several towns along Australia’s Great Ocean Road are given, the results of which are presented in the next chapter.

3.1

Perceptions of Environmental Quality

Kevin Lynch’s (1960) seminal book The Image of the City presented research on the way that people experience places with a view to providing information that could be directly useful for guiding the planning and design of cities. This research explored how people cognitively structure the cities in which they live and inspired a plethora of later research that explored various aspects of how people experience their everyday environments with a view to informing environmental planning and design actions. There are essentially two bodies of scholarly literature that address the environmental experiences of the user public that have implications for environmental planning and design practice. One is mainly the product of phenomenological and humanistic geographers who focus more on holistic concepts of place experience, e.g. sense of place and place-character, and is primarily based on their own personal observations rather than empirical evidence (Tuan 1974a,b, 1977, 1980; Relph 1976; Seamon 1979, 1982,

1989; Buttimer 1980; Norberg-Schulz 1980; Seamon and Mugerauer 1985). The other reports on research undertaken by environmental psychologists and other social scientists who systematically assessed individual and group responses to environments and environmental stimuli, generally using quantitative methods (e.g. Daniel and Boster 1976). These researchers tended to employ very specific assessment criteria, such as scenic quality, to measure responses to environments, often with the aim of identifying environmental characteristics that might be amendable to planning and design manipulation (Daniel and Vining 1983; Taylor et al. 1987). These two bodies of literature have generally remained distinct, however, they both have a lot to offer in regard to understanding how ordinary people experience places. Speculations and discussions about place, sense of place, genius loci, place attachment and associated concepts, and the relevance of these concepts for people functioning in their everyday, familiar environments, have rarely been subjected to empirical testing to ascertain their validity (Low and Altman 1992). As previously mentioned, several authors, particularly those writing from a phenomenological perspective, assert that these concepts defy empirical analysis altogether due to their holistic nature. They maintain that by simply identifying attributes and features of environments, and associated perceptual, cognitive and affective responses to these environments, one cannot fully appreciate the multidimensional and holistic way people actually experience places as embodied in concepts such as sense of place (Relph 1976). It can be argued, however, that any phenomenon, no matter how elusive, can potentially be dismantled by empirical investigation and the salient components, and relationships between components, studied to gain a better understanding of these phenomena (Rapoport 1985). The Psychology of Place, written by the environmental psychologist David Canter (1977), was one of the first books to bridge these two bodies of literature in that he proposed a framework for understanding the major components of what he refers to as authentic place experiences as conveyed through the aggregation of place-features that transform ‘spaces’ into ‘places’. This he conceives of as resulting from interrelationships between

38

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

three components – physical features of a place, the meanings that people associate with these features, and the behaviors of people in the place. He suggests these components should first be investigated separately and the findings then integrated in order to understand place experiences in a more holistic way. The first step, he suggests, is to identify and categorize the major physical components of the place being investigated and then identify links between these components and associated meanings and behaviors. Alternatively, one can start by identifying behaviors occurring in a place then relate these to place features and associated meanings. He maintains that once these place/person attributes are identified, the information can be synthesized to gain a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the users’ place experiences. To do this he suggests a multi-method approach using a combination of cognitive and behavioral mapping techniques, open-ended questioning and adjectival rating scales. In Canter’s later writings he suggests that place experiences will vary depending upon the intentions that a person has for being in a particular place. He tested this ‘purposive model of place’ (Canter 1983) to see if the degree to which an environment is considered to be a ‘place’ will be influenced by the degree it is also perceived to be helpful to individuals or groups in fulfilling their needs. This model is reminiscent of Gibson’s Theory of Environmental Affordances (Gibson 1979) as both perspectives are based on the premise that people will value things in the environment that can facilitate their behaviors and/or fulfill their needs. Canter maintains that in addition to understanding salient features of a place and people’s interactions with, and conceptions of the place, it is also necessary to identify their purposes for being in the place. He suggests that people over time can grow to share similar conceptions of places if they share similar intentions for being in the place. 3.1.1

Involving the public in assessing place character

Studies undertaken to support professional planning decision-making with respect to conservation of place character, variously defined as neighborhood,

town and urban character, have typically relied on the opinion of planning and design experts – e.g. landscapes architects and urban planners. These experts use their professional judgment to identify the features and attributes of places that they feel are important in conveying their character. The problem with this approach for these types of ‘character studies’ is that these experts typically rely solely on their professional judgments and tend to ignore the perceptions and environmental values of the users of the places under investigation. This disregard for how the user public conceptualizes and values their local surroundings stems from an assumption that because of their professional training they possess greater aesthetic sensibilities than do the general public, and hence they are the ones most appropriate for making these types of assessments. Some scholars have argued in support of this view, suggesting that basing such studies on public perceptions, rather than the judgment of experts, will produce results reflecting only the lowest common denominator. They maintain that only trained planning and design professionals are able to fully comprehend the aesthetic value of landscapes, and hence are the only ones suitable to make such assessments (Carlson 1977). However, the validity of this assumption has been challenged by the findings of research suggesting that such expert-based appraisals of environmental quality are often incongruent with public perceptions and values (Hershberger 1988; Uzzell and Leward 1990). For example, some studies have suggested that professional environmental designers tend to place more importance on the style and form of designed features in judging landscape quality than the lay public, who typically rely on associational and functional aspects of the environment in making such judgments (Hubbard 1996). As Bourassa (1991; p. 131) rightly observes: … landscapes are inescapably public. Unlike works of art, landscapes must be encountered by the public. It therefore follows that public preferences should have a greater role to play in evaluating the aesthetic quality of a landscape.

It is frequently argued, often by developers or the architects they employ, and often in the context of contentious development proposals,

3.1

Perceptions of Environmental Quality

that environmental aesthetic values of the user public are too subjective to be relied upon for judging the aesthetic suitability of changes in the environment. It is also often argued that holistic notions of environmental quality, such as place-character and sense of place, despite the fact that these concepts are increasingly being used as assessment criteria in planning practice, are too elusive to base planning and design decisions. The few character studies that have been based on the perceptions of residents, rather than experts, using the ‘town character’ criterion, have shown that people are often remarkably similar in their assessments of the character of local environments with which they are familiar (Graham 1985; Green 1999, 2000a,b; Nelessen 1993). The aim of these types of studies is to tap into local knowledge in assessing place character based on the assumption that since these concepts, e.g. place-character and sense of place, represent inherently perceptuallybased phenomena it is only logical that the user public be involved in making these types of assessments. The assumption is that since they are the ones who experience their local surroundings on a regular basis, they will possess a more detailed knowledge of these environments and be sensitive to changes that will impact on their character. It has been suggested that people will acquire such knowledge as a result of developing, over time, increasingly elaborate ‘personal construct systems’ (Harrison and Sarre 1975; Kelly 1955; Riley and Palmer 1976; Stringer 1976). Understanding these construct systems is what underlies these types of studies. Emotional connections that people can establish with environmental features within their local surroundings, which will typically be important to their sense of place, would also be virtually impossible for these experts to identify without involving the user public in these types of studies. It is important, however, studies of this type be designed and administered in such a way that the results will accurately reflect a true cross-section of community perceptions and values and not just the views of special-interest groups or influential or assertive citizens, whose views may, either intentionally or unintentionally, be given disproportionately more weight.

39

By demonstrating that the environmental perceptions of the wider public have been considered, greater legitimacy will be given to planning decisions and subsequent environmental actions, making them easier to publicly defend. Such an approach can create a greater sense of ownership for the local community in the decision-making process, and thus a greater sense of commitment and responsibly to protecting the environment. People can also become better informed about local planning issues, and therefore be more likely to develop an informed and sympathetic attitude toward local planning problems and authorities. In contrast, if communities feel left out of this process they are more likely to criticize, or be threatened by, any planning decisions and subsequent environmental actions. Involving the public in this way is also a more egalitarian and democratic approach to planning. Sometimes, however, the public may not understand the nature or appreciate the importance of certain environmental actions, deemed necessary by authorities to insure their well-being or that of the environment, but which may be perceived to negatively impact on their sense of place. Planning actions can often elicit such conflicts and it is therefore important that the user public be kept informed with regard to how such decisions have been made. 3.1.2

Methodological approaches

There have been relatively few landscape perception studies that have specifically explored experiences of place character from the perspective of the user public. Those that have been done have employed a range of assessment criteria, including ‘town character’ (Graham 1985; Green 1999; Nelessen 1993), ‘sense of place’ (Fishwick and Vining 1992; Green et al. 1985b), town ‘sacred structure’ (Hester 1985b), ‘town special image’ (Palmer 1983), ‘neighborhood image congruity’ (Hull 1992) and others which are aimed at assessing community perceptions of the character associated with specific places. Often the results of these studies can be fed directly into to the planning process to assist in decision-making related to attempts to conserve town-character.

40

Combinations of methods used for gathering and processing data, that have been used in these studies, in most cases, had been derived from earlier work on perceptually based landscape perception and preference research, for which a plethora of methods had been developed, primarily by environmental psychologists and other social scientists. In many instances these methods had been adapted from methods that had been developed for use in research in experimental and social psychology in the 1940s and 1950s. The large repertoire of techniques used in these landscape perception/preferences studies has proven useful for collecting perceptual response data, presenting study environments to observers for evaluation and for data analysis. Many of these methods can be easily adapted for use in studying community perceptions of town character and other more holistic notions of landscape quality. A review of the genesis of these methods and the methodological approaches they have been associated with is given below to provide background to the studies on community perceptions of place-character that are presented later in the chapter. Much of the early research on landscape preferences of the general public focused on measuring aesthetic values associated with natural and wilderness landscapes for use in guiding landscape planning and management decision-making. An important catalyst for this early work was the introduction of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the United States (United States Government 1969). This landmark legislation directed those responsible for managing public lands, such as the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management, to develop techniques, preferably quantitative techniques, which could be used by federal agencies to assess public aesthetic responses to landscapes under their jurisdiction. This, and other similar legislations, resulted in increased government funding to develop methods that would be capable of linking potentially manageable landscape features with the perceptual responses of potential users. Some of this research was also undertaken in culturally modified settings, such as urban and residential environments,

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

used to inform urban planning decision-making (Nasar 1990). Other studies of this type were aimed at testing the validity of theories concerning landscape preferences, what types of landscapes and landscape features people like and why. In the early 1980s two researchers at the University of Arizona, Terry Daniel and Irvin Zube, along with their postgraduate students, published two seminal journal articles on the status of landscape perception/ preference research at the time (Daniel and Vining 1983; Zube et al. 1982). In their respective papers they came up with virtually the same conceptual frameworks for placing the different studies and associated methods that had been used in these types of studies. Both papers made a distinction between ‘perceptual’ and ‘expert’ based approaches, with the expert approach being further divided into ‘formal aesthetic’ and ‘ecological’ paradigms, while the perceptually based approaches were classified as ‘psychophysical’, ‘cognitive/psychological’ and ‘experiential/phenomenological’. These perceptually based paradigms conceptualize human responses to the landscape ranging from measuring specific responses to landscapes and associated physical attributes to progressively more generalized, holistic explorations of person–landscape interactions. This has been described as forming ‘… a continuum from… psychophysical through cognitive to experiential [in which], the human component of the system can be seen to change from passive observer through selective information processor to active participant’ (Taylor et al. 1987; p. 388). This paradigmatic classification remains valid today, with later developments in the field generally employing the original repertoire of methods but for a range of different applications and in different environmental contexts. A review of these methodological paradigms, as originally defined by Daniel and Zube, is presented here as background to discussions about studies on community perceptions of town character that are presented later in the chapter.

3.1

Perceptions of Environmental Quality

3.1.2.1 The psychophysical approach The psychophysical approach seeks to analyze preferences for landscapes by statistically linking physical characteristics with the perceptual responses of potential users. The assumption underpinning this approach is that there are definite ‘… mathematical relationships between the physical characteristics of the landscape and the perceptual judgment of human observers …’ (Daniel and Vining 1983; p. 56). Responses are measured quantitatively, generally using one or more evaluative assessment criteria, for example from low to high ‘scenic quality’ (Zube 1974) or ‘scenic beauty’ (Daniel and Boster 1976). It is important that the assessment criteria be meaningful to the way the respondents actually experience the environmental settings being assessed. The idea is that by measuring salient physical attributes associated with the landscapes under investigation, and linking these to the perceptual responses of the respondents, responses to environments similar to those in which the measurements were made can be predicted. These physical attributes often represent potentially manageable environmental characteristics, such as the size and density of vegetation visible in scenes or degree of topographic variation, land use or presence of water as measured from topographic maps and aerial photographs (Daniel and Boster 1976; Zube et al. 1974, 1975, 1976). This approach has been adapted to study a wide range of topics. For example, Kenneth Craik at the University of California used it to link abstract visual qualities visible in landscapes, such as textures, forms, lines and other visual characteristics, with public landscape preferences (Craik 1972a). Respondents used in these types of studies are typically selected to represent the general public or particular user groups. They are asked to make aesthetic judgments on selected environmental stimuli, typically displayed in photographs. As Taylor et al., (1987; p. 371) explain: Evaluation of landscape quality, under the psychophysical paradigm, is done by the general public or by special interest groups, rather than experts. This approach assumes that if one

41 wishes to identify or design landscapes of aesthetic appeal for the public, the most direct way is to test samples of the general public to learn what they find appealing.

The respondent’s judgments are typically measured using some form of rating scales (Daniel and Boster 1976; Zube et al. 1974, 1975) or ranking methods (Shafer and Brush 1977). Other methods, such as the photo Q-sort technique (Pitt and Zube 1979) and photo-comparison methods, have also been employed (Bernaldez and Parra 1979; Fenton 1985; Nasar 1988). The use of these various techniques has been shown to produce consistently comparable results (Daniel and Vining 1983). The photo Q-sort method is a technique that is useful for collecting response data in face-to-face interviews. This method was originally developed for use in personality assessment (Block 1961) and later modified for use in landscape preference research (Pitt and Zube 1976). It requires respondents to sort sets of stimuli photographs into a predetermined number of piles, typically seven, to reflect the degree to which the depicted landscapes express the assessment criteria, for example from high to low scenic quality. The number of photographs in each pile is often prescribed to approximate a normal distribution; which is assumed to result in finer discriminations between the stimuli elements. Some researchers maintain, however, that this is neither necessary nor desirable, as it can artificially force responses into artificial value categories. Quantitative data generated from these types of methods is typically analyzed using simple statistical procedures to derive ratings for individual landscape scenes aggregated across respondent groups or by combing values for a number of similar scenes to obtain aggregate ratings for spatially defined areas of similar character (Daniel and Boster 1976; Zube and Mills 1976; Zube et al. 1974). More sophisticated methods for transforming the data have also been used, but generally simple statistical procedures are considered adequate for most purposes (Schroeder 1984). However, it is

42

often advisable to standardize the rating data by calculating Z-scores to account for variations in the rating styles of respondents. Respondent samples with as few as 20 members have been shown to be capable of providing reliable results (Daniel and Boster 1976; Schroeder 1984). Some studies have, however, identified possible sub-group differences, such as between professional environmental designers and the general public (Buhyoff et al. 1978; Devlin and Nasar 1989; Hershberger 1988). Individual variations related to the environmental history of respondents (Lyons 1983; Tips and Savasdisara 1986), their familiarity with the environment or environment type being assessed (Herzog et al. 1976; Lyons 1983; Nasar 1980; Pedersen 1978), their mood at the time of assessment (Hull and Steward 1992), their personality type (Craik 1972b), stage in the life cycle (Pennartz and Elinga 1990; Zube et al. 1983) and ethnicity (Hull and Revell 1989; Yang and Kaplan 1990; Zube et al. 1985) have been suggested as possibly influencing responses. However, the vast majority of these types of studies have found that people assess the visual quality of landscapes, using criteria such as scenic beauty or simple preference, in evaluating a range of different landscape settings, from natural to more culturally modified settings, in remarkably similar ways (Daniel 2000, 2001; Daniel and Boster 1976; Zube and Mills 1976; Schroeder 1984). Different methods have also been used to present study environments to respondents in lieu of actual on-site visits, with photographs being the most commonly used presentation technique. Using photographs in this way has the advantage of being low in cost and requiring less time than would be required for collecting response data in the field. It is important, however, that respondents viewing the scenes are told to judge the landscapes as depicted in the photographs, and not to judge the photographs or the photographic quality of the images themselves (Daniel and Vining 1983; p. 58). Photographs used in this way have been found to elicit very similar responses to those obtained in the field (Craik 1972a; Daniel and Boster 1976; Feimer 1984; Hershberger and Cass 1974; Nasar 1988; Shafer

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

and Richards 1974; Shuttleworth 1980; Stamps 1990; Steward et al. 1984) with color photographic images proving to be the most valid representations (Daniel and Boster 1976; Zube 1976; Zube et al. 1987) while black and white photographic prints, drawings and paintings are substantially less convincing (Schomaker 1979; Zube et al. 1987). Environmental simulation techniques have also been used, including the use of scaled models (Wohlwill 1979) and computer generated simulations, such as digitally manipulated photomontages and visualizations techniques, which are increasingly being used to present imaginary or proposed environments to respondents for assessment purposes (Bishop and Lange 2006; Stock et al. 2007). Landscape scenes used as stimuli are typically selected either randomly or purposively to display specific variables of interest or to test particular hypotheses. In some studies the respondents themselves have been involved in selecting scenes or landscape features that are then photographed and used as stimuli, which can further increase the validity of results as both the stimuli and assessments are perceptually derived (Green 2005). Because landscapes inevitably change over time, ephemeral characteristics such as changing atmospheric and lighting conditions, captured in photographic images, can have a biasing effect on respondent judgments. For example, seasonality evident in photographs has been shown to be capable of inducing some response bias (Buhyoff and Wellman 1979). This is typically overcome by taking photographs under consistent lighting and atmospheric conditions, such as on clear days in the same season (Nasar 1988). In several novel studies ephemeral aspects of the landscape have been the variables of interest. Examples include a study that explored the perceived aesthetic impact of varying levels of air pollution on views of the Grand Canyon (Latimer et al. 1980), and one that looked at the influence on preferences for Australian wilderness scenes with fleeting wildlife visible in the scenes (Hull and McCarthy 1988). The ability of photographic stimuli to accurately portray such subtleties in the landscape attests to the sensitivity of this approach for use in these types of studies.

3.1

Perceptions of Environmental Quality

It can be argued that a single item assessment criterion, which is typically used in these types of studies, may not be able to accurately measure responses to more complex, holistic constructs of place experience, particularly in the context of culturally-modified environments, because concepts such as sense of place and place character are inherently multidimensional in nature. However, some psychophysical-type studies have successfully employed assessment criteria in an attempt to measure more generalized aspects of perceived environmental quality. For example, perceived ‘appropriateness’ of development within natural settings (Wohlwill 1979) and ‘sense of place’ in the context of small-town settings (Green et al. 1985b) have both been assessed using this approach, suggesting it can provide a reliable way of making assessments of more generalized constructs of environmental quality, providing respondents are able to conceptualize the study environments in terms of the assessment criterion being used. 3.1.2.2 Cognitive/psychological approaches In contrast to the psychophysical approach, the ‘cognitive’ or ‘psychological’ approach (Daniel and Vining 1983; Taylor et al. 1987) focuses on identifying a broader spectrum of values underpinning people’s response to the landscape. The central concern here is to relate an array of human values to different types of landscapes and/or to different respondent characteristics. From this perspective the landscape is conceived of as conveying meaning along multiple perceptual, cognitive and affective dimensions that underlie the way people ascribe value to environments. The concern here is more often to do with answering theoretical questions about how landscapes are perceived, and what people like or dislike about them, and less about trying to identify specific, measurable and potentially manageable characteristics of particular landscapes, as does the psychophysical approach (Taylor et al. 1987, Sancar 1988). Assessment criteria used in these types of studies has ranged from general landscape preference (Kaplan 1975, 1977a,b) to more focused constructs of environmental quality, such as perceived naturalness (Hartig and Evans

43

1993) and tranquility (Herzog and Bosley 1992). As Daniel and Vining (1983; p. 65) point out, with this approach landscape quality is determined by the ability of a landscape to evoke positive or negative responses where: A high-quality landscape is one that evokes positive feelings such as security, relaxation, warmth, freedom, cheerfulness, or happiness. Low-quality landscapes are associated with stress, fear, insecurity, constraint, gloom, or other negative feelings

These types of studies have also explored characteristics of the respondents, both of individuals and groups, and how they might influence their perceptual judgments. This has included the cultural affiliation of respondents (Zube and Mills 1976), their personality type (Craik 1975), degree of familiarity with the environments being assessed and others characteristics of the respondents (Balling and Falk 1982; Herzog et al. 1976; Lyons 1983; Nasar 1980). Theoretical hypotheses suggesting that people possess universal, evolutionary-derived predispositions to prefer certain types of landscape settings and features have also been tested using this general approach (Kaplan 1987; Orians 1986). Methods useful for measuring environmental meaning are frequently employed for collecting response data in these types of studies. These typically rely on the participants responding to, or supplying, words that reflect meanings that they associate with displayed landscapes. Like the psychophysical approach, this approach frequently employs various forms of rating scales. The semantic differential technique, which was developed by Osgood in the 1950s (Osgood et al. 1957) and later adapted for use in landscape and architectural perception research (Garling 1976; Kasmar 1988; Marans and Spreckelmeyer 1982), is one method that has proven useful for measuring the environmental meaning that the respondents associate with landscapes. Adjective checklists (Craik 1975) and photocomparison and photo-sorting techniques have also been employed. As in the psychophysical approach, environments are also typically displayed for assessment purposes via photographic images.

44

The paired photo-comparison method involves respondents making comparisons between all possible pairs of landscape photographs in a set in response to a particular assessment criterion (Fenton 1985; Garling 1976; Nasar 1988). The multiple photo-sorting technique (Green 2005; Groat 1982) asks respondents to first sort sets of stimuli photographs according to perceived similarity. They are then asked to describe, in an openended fashion, why they sorted the photographs into the groupings that they did. From these tasks two kinds of data can be derived, quantitative data that measures the co-occurrence of the photographs that reflects how they have been placed in the groupings, and categorical data derived from content analysis of the open-ended descriptions used by respondents in describing the photo groupings. This technique is useful for categorizing landscapes, based on respondent perceptions, and exploring the underlying perceptual structure in the way respondents perceive arrays of stimuli environments. Typically, data derived from this method is analyzed using Multidimensional Scaling Analysis (MDS), a statistical technique that is able to graphically display perceptual relationships in the data to illustrate the manner in which the respondents (or group of respondents if data are aggregated) conceptualize sets of stimuli elements (e.g. landscape scenes) in n-dimensional perceptual space. Using Optimal Scaling methods the results can also be combined with the categorical data to generate bi-plots and these are able to graphically illustrate relationships between stimuli elements and associated meanings (Green 2005; Real et al. 2000). The repertory grid method is a similar technique that has also been used to explore responses to landscapes based on ‘personal construct systems’ (Harrison and Sarre 1975; Riley and Palmer 1976; Stringer 1976). This method was originally developed in the 1950s by the psychologist George Kelly (Kelly 1955) to support his ‘Personal Construct Theory’ but has since been adapted to study how people conceptualize environments. In this method a matrix is used to collect response data in relation to selected sets of environmental stimuli. Constructs are first elicited from the respondents that are reflective of how they differentiate between the stimuli elements

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

(Collett 1979) and these are then used to have them assess the similarity of the various stimuli elements. Data derived from this method can also be analyzed using multidimensional scaling analysis techniques. It is important that techniques that rely on predetermined, word-based response formats, such as the semantic differential and adjective rating scales, are constructed using words that are meaningful to the respondents’ and reflect how they actually experience the environments under investigation if they are to produce valid results. Some researchers have combined verbal and non-verbal methods in a staged manner to increase the validity and interpretability of the results by first eliciting constructs using non-verbal methods, e.g. the multiple photo-sorting technique, and then using the words identified from that in constructing other methods, such as rating scales, that are then used to test larger samples of respondents (Fenton 1985; Garling 1976). This approach avoids the possible problem of the researcher selecting constructs that may not be meaningful to the respondents because the respondents are involved in identifying the criteria themselves. The analysis of data from techniques such as multiple photo-sorting do face problems in terms of interpretation, which is typically done by the researcher who looks at the spatial arrangements of stimuli elements as displayed in the stimulus configuration plots (generated by MDS analysis) and examines the words that respondents used to describe their photo-groupings. This interpretation is based on his or her own judgment, which may or may not reflect the actual structure of the response pattern. One way of overcoming this problem is to also involve the respondents in interpreting the results. 3.1.2.3 The experiential/phenomenological approach ‘Experiential’ and ‘phenomenological’ approaches to landscape quality assessment have focused more on the experiences of people and less so on identifying manageable features of landscapes. The emphasis here has been on identifying the quality and content of emotional connections, symbolic ties and place attachments that develop over time and that color

3.1

Perceptions of Environmental Quality

the way people experience the landscape within the context of their daily lives (Relph 1976; Seamon 1979, 1982, 1989; Tuan 1974a,b, 1977). This approach focuses on identifying the full spectrum of values underlying experiences of places, not simply aesthetic values, and is typically used to develop theory rather than guide planning and design decision-making. The landscape is viewed in holistic terms where individuals and environments are seen as being both dynamic and interrelated. Each person is seen to mentally construe distinct, individual and multidimensional images of the landscape and it is recognized that these images also change over time (Daniel and Vining 1983; Taylor et al. 1987). The complexity of environmental values associated with the entirety of the landscape, rather than simply just individual elements, as embodied in concepts such as ‘place’ (Relph 1976), ‘genius loci’ (Norberg-Schulz 1980; Seamon 1989) and ‘sense of place’ (Fishwick and Vining 1992; Rowles 1980), as discussed in the last chapter, form the focus of this approach. These types of studies have been used to explore experiences of people at various environmental scales from cities (Hummon 1992; Saarinen and Cooke 1971; Seamon 1979), regions (Lowenthal and Prince 1965), small towns (Harper 1987) down to the home environment (Pennartz 1986; Sixsmith 1986). Phenomenology, which underpins many of these studies, is an approach that seeks to uncover the holistic nature of environmental experiences without prior presuppositions about possible outcomes (Bachelard 1958; Seamon 1979; Seamon and Nordin 1980). Seamon (1979; p. 16–17) explains this perspective in saying: … phenomenology (is) a way of study which works to uncover and describe things and experiences – i.e. phenomena – as they are in their own terms… Before any prejudices or a priori theories have identified, labelled or explained it… phenomenology strives for a holistic view of the phenomenon it studies…parts reciprocate parts, and parts reciprocate whole: each gives insight into all the others.

45

Phenomenology recognizes a critical division between the habitual and taken-for-granted behavior of ‘insiders’, who are seen to be unselfconsciously ‘rooted’ to specific places, and those of ‘outsiders’, assumed to possess a more objective and self-conscous ‘sense of place’ (Relph 1976; Tuan 1980). Data is typically collected using qualitative, more unstructured methods, with the aim of identifying underlying themes involved in individual environmental experiences. This has often included the use of unstructured, open-ended interviews (Rowles 1980, 1983) and focus groups (Seamon 1979). Participant-observation methods, often used in cultural anthropological research, where the researcher lives with the people being studied in an effort to gain an in-depth understanding of their experiences, have also been employed (Harper 1987). Content analysis of descriptions of environmental experiences, which can be verbal, literary or pictorial, is another often-employed method. The aim of the methods used in the experiential approach is to capture in-depth and highly detailed descriptions of environmental experiences, from which themes underlying people’s experiences can be identified. It is the identification of these themes and the interrelationships between them that is most important in this approach. As previously discussed, many phenomenological oriented researchers reject the use of quantitative, empirical approaches entirely, maintaining that places have ‘… unique character… that is somehow greater than the sum of the individual parts of a place’ (Seamon 1989; p. 280). They maintain that environmental experiences defy reduction to sets of measurable variables (Norberg-Schulz 1980; Relph 1976; Seamon 1989). Instead they rely on their own subjective ‘reading’ of the landscape without attempting to provide empirical validation for their observations. In this way researchers such as Relph (1976), Buttimer (1980) and Violich (1985) have positioned themselves as possessing heightened awareness and sensitivity to

46

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

the landscape, maintaining that if their observations resonate with the reader then that makes them valid. In this approach each place is seen as both unique and ever changing. As a consequence the results tend to be highly sensitive to variations between places and people at different times. They can, therefore, be useful for identifying those aspects of landscapes where experiences of change, either progressive or cyclical types of change, are of interest. While the results are typically not very useful for informing planning and design decision-making, which would need to able to identify landscape features and characteristics, preferably that are manageable, they can generate useful information for initial stages of a research project to identify peoples’ landscape values and define more specific assessment criteria that can then be used to design data collection instruments, such as rating scales and survey questions, that are capable of collecting more focused responses from larger respondent samples (Taylor et al. 1987). Many studies based in this approach have utilized a case study research design that focuses on a single environmental setting (Harper 1987; Rowles 1980, 1983; Seamon 1979; Violich 1985). As noted by Yin (1994; p. 3), … the distinctive need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena…the case study allows an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events…

Yin (1994; p. 3) defines a case study as an empirical study that ‘investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.’ Case studies rely on multiple sources of data obtained using a variety of methods. If the results converge in a triangulating fashion it tends to confirm their validity. Various methods used in phenomeno-

logical/experiential studies, that include unstructured interviews, participant-observation, focus groups and content analysis of archival sources, are also typically those that are used in case-study research. The biggest draw-back of many of these methods, such face-to-face interviews, is that they are labor intensive, making them difficult to use for larger scale studies. A frequent critique of case study research is that the results are difficult to generalize to other people and localities. This is, however, compatible with the underlying premise of the phenomenological approach, which asserts that observations of one place and time cannot, and should not, be generalized to other places. Case studies can, however, provide an alternative to statistical approaches in the formulation of theoretical frameworks that are based on ‘analytic generalizations’. When a series of case studies, undertaken in similar situations, repeatedly reveal the same findings it does tend to lend credibility to the findings and in generalizing them to other similar settings. 3.1.2.4 Combining qualitative and quantitative methods Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods derived from the different approaches, as reviewed above, has resulted in some novel hybrid methodologies. A good example is a study by Schroeder (1991), which used a combination of methods based within both the psychophysical and phenomenological approaches. For this study, he collected qualitative and quantitative data with the objective of linking respondents’ thoughts, feelings and memories with specific environmental features within an arboretum setting. Respondents first rated, on a tenpoint preference scale, color photographs of landscape scenes taken within the arboretum. Preference rating scores were then subjected to cluster analysis, both across scenes and across respondents. Respondents were then independently asked to ‘select from memory, three to five landscapes that characterized the kind of place the arboretum

3.2 Assessing Perceptions of Place Character

is for them, and to give a brief verbal description of each landscape by describing their thoughts, feelings and memories that they associated with it’ (Schroeder 1991; p. 233). These open-ended responses were then content analyzed to identify both environmental features and associated qualities. The researcher was then able to statistically link the experiential qualities and preference ratings to specific types of environments and associated place features. For example, the quality of serenity was associated with cool places containing water, while joyfulness was related to warm sunny places, both of which were also strongly preferred environments. 3.2 Assessing Perceptions of Place Character More holistic and complex constructs of environmental quality, such as people’s perceptions of place character and sense of place, have, as previously mentioned, been explored in a few studies that have used combinations of the methodological approaches as discussed above. The studies reviewed below all evaluated community perceptions of place character in different environmental settings, using a diverse range of assessment criteria. These include studies that have explored community conceptions of the ‘sacred structure’ of a small coastal town in South Carolina that was being impacted by tourism (Hester 1985), the ‘special image’ of a small town on Cape Cod similarly being impacted by tourism and other forms of development (Palmer 1983), ‘neighborhood image congruity’ within the context of a small town in Southeastern Australia (Hull 1994) and three studies undertaken by the author. Two of these studies focused on community perceptions of ‘town character’ in small Australian coastal towns (Green 1995, 1999, 2000a,b) and one looked at ‘sense of place’ within two Australian towns that had been extensively damaged by a major bushfire (Green et al. 1985a,b).

47

3.2.1 A town’s sacred structure Hester’s (1985a,b, 1990) study within the small town of Manteo, North Carolina, aimed to identify environmental features integral to what he termed the town’s ‘sacred structure’. Town sacred structure was defined as the complex combination of significant places and social patterns to which local residents had become emotionally attached. The concept of a town’s sacred structure was thought to emphasizes environmental values that reflect unconscious attachments to place. Hester suggests that environmental designers may find this idea more useful for conceptualizing community landscape values than the more traditional notion of landscape aesthetics. Identification of town features perceived to be integral to the town’s sacred structure was also seen as valuable means of guiding future planning decision-making. A general community goals questionnaire was first used to survey residents’ attitudes in reference to town growth. The results suggested that many people felt emotionally attached to specific landscape features. For example, the waterfront, the village center and certain ships moored at the wharf were frequently mentioned. They wanted the economic benefits of tourism but they also wanted to preserve the small-town atmosphere that these features conveyed and avoid their replacement with ‘inauthentic’ environments. The researcher also sought to identify lifestyle qualities associated with the types of landscape features that were identified. The aim of the survey was to use the information to formulate development control and conservation planning regulations in order to protect these features and hence the town’s character. Subsequent to the initial survey, a behavioral mapping exercise was conducted to document daily activity patterns of the townspeople. Results of this exercise revealed ‘a powerful social mosaic [that] explained not only how

48

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

space related to the social patterns, but also how people had invested cultural memory in certain parts of the landscape’ (Hester 1990; p. 6). Specific activities that occurred at particular locations included (Hester 1990; p. 6): … exchanging gossip at the post office, hanging out at the docks and checking out the water (tides, shoreline, fishing catches, weather and gossip)… (and had)… recurred in the same places each day and likely for years. Lifestyles and landscape were intertwined

From the results of the behavioral mapping, community survey and informal interviews with town leaders, a list of places and place features was compiled that was thought to be most meaningful to the local community. These are features that ‘embodied both everyday habits and special rituals essential to the town’s sense of self ’ (Hester 1990; p. 8). This list of features was then developed into a questionnaire that was administered through the local newspaper, in which people were requested to rank the features and places in order of perceived value. They were also asked to indicate which places they felt could be changed to accommodate tourism, and which could not be sacrificed. Results of this survey were thought to give an indication of the intensity of place attachments associated with the various town features. A final ranked list of features was the final outcome of these combined methods. On it were listed a host of natural and built landscape features, such as a wetland area, a local park, a drug store and soda fountain, the post office, churches and other local features, which were at the top of the list; these were features locals were unwilling to sacrifice for potential economic gains that could result by increasing tourism. By combining survey methods with behavior mapping and a reiterative process of community consultation, a detailed assessment of the town’s character features, associated with its ‘sacred structure’, was obtained. It should be noted that many of the features on the final ranked list had not been identified in the initial community survey; it was only through combining the various methods that an accurate list of features was compiled.

In discussing the results, and similar studies undertaken by the researcher, Hester identified four mechanisms he thought are essential in fostering public awareness of the value of locally significant places and landscape features, which are related to the degree that places are threatened, legitimatised, shared by others in the community or consecrated by planning controls and preservation measures (Hester 1985a,b). The results of the Manteo study were ultimately used to create a ‘Sacred Structure Map’, which the researcher suggests effectively ‘transformed the typically vague discussion about loss of valued lifestyles and landscapes into a focused and specific debate about what sites to change or keep in order to reap the benefits of tourism’ (Hester 1990; p. 14). Most features located on this map had not been included in zoning ordinances, visual inventories or in lists of historic sites. This map also helped residents judge the impact of proposed development on the community, and local planners used it in formulating a new town plan. Additionally, it was used as a basis for negotiating with developers who were proposing potentially inappropriate development projects. Ten years after this study was conducted many of the features identified in the ‘sacred structure map’ were gone and new development had, to some degree, eroded the town’s character as it was at the time of the study. A fashionable bed-and-breakfast had been built on the site of a gravel parking lot that had been identified as a valued place. In addition, many of the features that had been originally identified no longer seemed important to the residents who had subsequently moved to the town and other features had been removed. One of the valued cafes was gone, which closed in a recession, as was a soda fountain and a once valued pubic statue in the center of town. Changes and development along the waterfront also occurred, and plans to move the post office (a popular meeting place) were proposed. The study was successful, however, in preserving some of the original character of the town. For example, due to influence of the study, the town’s ownership of substantial waterfront land allowed residents permanent access to the water (DeBlieu 1994; p. 136).

3.2 Assessing Perceptions of Place Character

3.2.2 A coastal town’s ‘special’ image Another innovative study that assessed community perceptions of landscape character was undertaken by Palmer (1983) in the coastal town of Dennis, Massachusetts in the northeastern United States. The objective of this study was to assess and inventory the community’s ‘special image of its land’ to guide the planning process and also to increase awareness within the community of visual resources associated with local landscapes. This was achieved by first determining which landscapes were preferred and disliked by the community. To do this, two types of information were collected; data on perceived similarity of different landscape types in the town and the relative scenic quality associated with these landscape types. First, a group of concerned residents were asked to identify views that they considered to be ‘representative of the range of views’ (Palmer 1983; p. 66) in the town and to indicate the location of these views on a local street map. Each view was then photographed in the field. The same community group then selected 56 photographs that they felt most accurately depicted the range of the town’s landscapes. Next, a random sample of 96 local registered voters was used to evaluate the 56 landscape scenes. Half the sample was asked to sort the photographs according to similarity. This group was also asked to describe, in a few words, the characteristics that best represented the similarities of the different landscape types that they had identified. The second group was requested to sort the photographs into seven piles according to scenic value using the Q-sort method. Half of this group was also asked to describe, again in a few words, factors they thought contributed to both the highest and lowest scenic quality of the different landscapes. The other half of this group was supplied with a checklist of 56 factors that the researcher thought contributed to the scenic value of the different landscape types and which respondents were asked to use to assess the scenes. Data generated from the similarity-sorting task was subjected to a form of cluster analysis, resulting in the classification of the different landscapes into six conceptual types, namely:

49

• • • • • •

Marsh and wooded landscapes Beach and water landscapes Suburban developed landscapes Developed open lands Commercial and municipal landscapes High-density residential landscapes

From content analysis of the open-ended response data, and responses to the scenic quality factors checklist, the marsh and woodland landscapes had been found to be most natural and peaceful. Beach and water landscapes, representing the interface between beach and sand dunes and the sea, were described as attractive, unspoilt, natural and suited for recreational uses, such as swimming and fishing, but not for residential or commercial development. The suburban development landscape type was characterized as low-density residential areas along ‘quiet country lanes’. Many respondents made a distinction between older, more traditional, and newer, modern forms of housing within this landscape type. The more traditional types of residential development were seen to epitomize ‘local character’. The developed open landscape type contained open lands with some form of associated development, such as a golf course or cemetery. These landscapes were described as ‘developed areas that exhibit compatibility with the environment’. Commercial and municipal landscapes were those that included shopping centers, schools, an industrial area, a police station and a church. These features were least preferred and described in decidedly negative terms. The researcher characterized responses to this type of landscape in saying, ‘This congested and objectionable landscape is definitely not considered part of the regional landscape image of Cape Cod and could be found Anywhere, USA’ (Palmer 1983; p. 70). The high-density residential landscape type was associated with tourists and residential housing, which were not considered to be homes, but referred to variously as ‘rental units’, ‘claptraps’ and ‘schlock residential’ development. This type of landscape was viewed as scenic blight encroaching upon the more valued areas of Cape Cod.

50

3.2.3

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

Neighborhood image congruity

This study employed the concept of ‘neighborhood image congruity’ (Hull 1992) to study resident’s perceptions of neighborhood character in a smalltown community in southeastern Australia. The research attempted to relate dimensions of a global, generalized description of a neighborhood image, as held by the local residents, to a variety of neighborhood scenes and associated environmental characteristics. A small sample of neighborhood leaders was initially interviewed to identify qualities potentially related to the neighborhood image. Next, bipolar adjective rating scales were developed from the results of these interviews, which were used to measure the intensity to which these qualities were associated with the neighborhood image. Questionnaires containing the adjective scales were distributed to residents at a neighborhood meeting, in which the participants were requested to evaluate their neighborhood using the scales. Next, an attempt was made to identify relationships between evaluative dimensions associated with the neighborhood image and the neighborhood’s physical characteristics. In this part of the study, a small sample of neighborhood residents were asked to rate 28 photographic slides of neighborhood scenes using a set of rating scales, which included a general preference scale and adjective rating scales (as used in the questionnaire). Physical characteristics of the neighborhood were then measured directly from the photographs. Rating scale data and area measurements from the photographs were then subjected to regression analysis to determine the physical dimensions predictive of the residents’ preferences. It was assumed by the researcher that preferences would be directly related to the degree of ‘place attachment’ associated with the scenes. In the researcher’s words, the concept of ‘place attachment was operationalized using a simple rating of preference’ (Hull 1992; p. 186). The feasibility of place attachment being measured by the use of a simple preference rating scale seems doubtful given suggestions in the literature, as discussed earlier, that place-attachment is a highly complex, multidimensional phenomenon.

3.2.4

Community sense of place in the aftermath of a natural disaster

This study explored community ‘sense of place’ in two small Australian towns, Mount Macedon and Macedon, located in the state of Victoria, an hour’s drive north of Melbourne. These towns, and several others nearby, had been badly damaged in the 1983 ‘Ash Wednesday’ bushfires (Green et al. 1985a,b). As a consequence of the fires, these towns, and their communities, suffered extensive environmental and property damage, and loss of lives. A range of methods, including visitor-employed photography, a photo rating method, a photograph Q-sort technique and a photograph ranking procedure, were used in the study. The aim was to identify the aggregate of environmental features important to the town’s ‘sense of place’. The practical application was to identify key environmental features that could be selectively maintained, restored or enhanced to help facilitate residents’ psychological adaptation to the post-fire environment by preserving a framework of cognitively familiar and valued place features. First, a sample of residents from both towns were given cameras and instructed to take ten photographs of local landscape features that they considered ‘would best convey the sense of place of the area to someone who had never been there before’ (Green et al. 1985; p. 58). Participants were also requested to keep a written record of what features they photographed, the location of features, and their reasons for selecting the features. This record keeping allowed identification of features that may have been destroyed in the fires, as respondents were allowed to take photographs of the locations of those that had been burnt in the fire. The frequency that specific features were photographed was used as a rough measure of how strongly specific environmental elements within the two towns contributed to the residents’ sense of place. Color photographic slides were then taken of those features that were most frequently photographed by the respondents, and these were then used in subsequent data collection procedures.

3.2 Assessing Perceptions of Place Character

Slides generated from the participatory photography exercise, along with slides of randomly selected local landscape scenes, were then used as stimuli in a typical psychophysical slide-rating exercise. A sample of residents from both towns were involved in rating, on a ten-point unipolar rating scale, 80 color slides of both the features identified through the participatory photography and the randomly selected scenes, to measure the degree to which each image conveyed the area’s sense of place. Aggregated ratings were then calculated for each slide. Subsequent to the slide rating exercise a photograph Q-sort technique (Pitt and Zube 1979) was employed to check the validity of features identified in the proceeding phase of the study. For this method, respondents were asked to sort color prints of the 80 photographs into seven piles. The different sorting piles (seven in total) were representative of a continuum from those features perceived to contribute the least to those perceived to most strongly contribute to the area’s sense of place. Responses were again averaged across respondents for each photograph. The final method utilized a photograph ranking procedure to determine the relative rank order of the features. In this exercise, respondents were asked to place the photographs in the order that best represented the degree to which the depicted place features contributed to the area’s sense of place. This study demonstrated that the respondents were capable of making fine distinctions between different types of landscape features using the sense of place criterion. In addition, the methods did not result in dividing features simply into sense of place features and all others, but differentiated between them along a full spectrum of compatibly with respect to sense of place as experienced by the residents. Ratings of the randomly selected scenes also demonstrated that people could make precise evaluative judgments about the fittingness of unfamiliar features, such as scenes of private and secluded properties, using the sense of place criterion. Furthermore, the study found that residents within each of the two towns exhibited a consistently high level of agreement with respect to the importance of the sense of place features. There were also significant differences between

51

each of the two towns with respect to many of the features. This high intra-group consistency was suggested to give support to Relph’s (1976) notion of an insider place image. 3.2.5

Community perceptions of ‘town character’ in a coastal tourist town

This study explored community perceptions of ‘town character’ in an Australian coastal town (Byron Bay in the state of New South Wales) that was experiencing dramatic environmental changes as a consequence of increased tourism and residential development, which was perceived by the local community to be negatively impacting on the town’s character (Green 1995, 1999, 2000a). The aim was to identify the aggregate of landscape features that the community collectively thought imbued the town with its distinctive character by linking connotative meanings to the town’s character, in a general sense, with specific landscape features perceived to be instrumental in conveying that character. Features associated with loss of town character were also explored. The methodology employed a combination of methods based in the psychophysical, cognitive and phenomenological approaches of landscape quality assessment as previously discussed. This included content analysis of archival materials, a mail survey of community knowledge about the town’s character, and a community landscape feature rating exercise. The aim was to link a generalized community conception of the town’s character with specific landscape features they perceived to either contribute to, or detract from, the town’s character, and to measure the degree to which these features contributed to the town’s character. Initially, a mail survey was used to identify both landscape features perceived to be ‘in character’ and those thought to be ‘out of character’. The most frequently identified features were then photographed and used as stimuli in two community photo-rating workshops. At the workshops the partici-

52

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

pants assessed the depicted features using a battery of bi-polar, seven-point rating scales. Data from the photo-rating workshops was subjected to multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS), and multi-discriminant function analysis was used to determine the importance of the various scales that respondents used in discriminating between features. The results of this later analysis showed that ‘naturalness’ and ‘beauty’ had the greatest power in discriminating between features, ‘pleasantness’, ‘interest’ and ‘distinctiveness’ and ‘peacefulness’ were also found to be key qualities used by the community to evaluate the town’s character and erosion of that character. The findings also showed that those features that were rated as highly compatible with the town’s character were, as one would expect, associated with more positive meanings. For example, a variety of natural features associated with the immediate coastal environment, different types of vegetation (e.g. rainforest and hinterland pastoral landscape scenes), historic buildings and visually distinctive landmarks (e.g. a festively painted community center building and a highly visible lighthouse) were all strongly associated with positive meanings. A variety of popular behavior settings, such as pubs, restaurants and shops in the town’s center were rated as only slightly expressive of town character, but were still associated with a positive profile of meanings. These features seemed to be related more strongly with social interaction in the town than with the aesthetic attributes of the physical environment. A variety of newer built features (e.g. a new shopping arcade, a large supermarket building, a brick clock tower and a new housing estate) were all rated as highly incompatible with the town’s character and likewise associated with a profile of negative connotations. Furthermore, many of these features, as well as being new additions to the town, were of standardized design and lacked adequate articulation in their architectural facades. The large scale of some of these buildings, compared to the smaller scale of other built features in the town, was also identified as detracting from local character and associated with negative meanings.

surface articulation) could be obtained, which if reflected in the design of new features would be expected to influence the perceived compatibility of these features with regard to the town’s character. This study also demonstrated that the methodology, or a variation of it, could be easily used in other small town settings for use in modeling public perceptions of town character. It could, for example, be used to guide land-use planning decisions by identifying features that should be preserved, restored or created that would be perceived to be ‘in character’ while minimizing those features perceived to be ‘out of character’.

By examining the physical characteristics associated with the character-defining features insights into design attributes (e.g. scale relationships, materials,

In addressing these objectives, three types of information were collected, beginning with descriptions of a general town character image, proceeding

3.2.6

Scenic and town character assessment in a sub-tropical coastal town

This study was conducted in the sub-tropical, coastal town of Airlie Beach in the Australian state of Queensland (Green 2000b). The aim of the study was to define a consensus image of the town’s character and the scenic qualities of its landscape that could be used to guide the formulation of a Development Control Plan (DCP) for the town. The DCP had the aim of conserving the town’s character and scenic attributes, while minimizing loss of the most valued attributes of the town in the face of continued town growth, which was primarily due to increased tourism development. The study sought to obtain information about how the residents, who were familiar with the local environment, and to lesser extent tourists, evaluated the town’s visual environment and its character. Specifically, the study sought to: • Define a consensus town-character image. • Identify a range of environment types, features and views within the town that were important to the town’s character. • Evaluate the scenic quality of key views identified in this process. • Draw conclusions from the results to provide useful information for formulating the Development Control Plan.

3.2 Assessing Perceptions of Place Character

to gathering information on specific environmental features associated with this image and finally quantitative evaluations of the range of scenes and character features that had been previously identified. To collect this information, four methods were employed. Initially, face-to-face interviews with 105 respondents, both residents and tourists, were conducted, the focus being primarily on three open-ended questions: • In your own words briefly describe the general character of Airlie Beach. • Imagine you are trying to describe what Airlie Beach is like to someone who has never been here before. List the features of the town that you think most contribute to its distinctive character. • Now list the features of the town that most contribute to loss of the town’s distinctive character. In addition, basic information about the respondents was collected, including their residential status (local or tourist), how long they had lived in the town, age category, gender and how much importance they placed on the preservation/enhancement of town character. Next, a projective mapping technique was used with a sub-sample of 60 of the interview respondents. The respondents were presented with a street map of the town and instructed to: … indicate up to seven (7) views within the town that represent the range of scenes or different types of places in the town. Imagine you want to illustrate with photographs the range of both good and bad scenes in the town in order to describe it to someone who has never been here before. On the map indicate where you would take these photographs from.

The scenes, and photographic vantage point locations, most frequently identified on the projective maps, were then photographed in the field. This resulted in a set of 55 scenes. These photographs were then combined

53

with a smaller number of scenes that had been selected by the research team in order to test public perceptions to specific features, such as general styles of architecture, signage, landscape plant materials and roadside treatments. The full set of images was then used as stimuli for a photographic Q-sort technique used to collect quantitative visual assessment data in regard to the range of views that had been identified in the projective mapping exercise. Twenty-one local residents participated in this exercise who were asked to sort the photographs into seven piles. The first pile of photographs represented the most scenic views/places while the last pile (the seventh) represented the least scenic with intermediate piles representing gradations between these two poles. The number of photographs that were to be included in each pile was prescribed to reflect a normal distribution. After the respondents sorted all the photographs they were asked to identify the distinguishing features of the three views that they considered most scenic (pile 1) and the three views that they considered least scenic (pile 7). The initial interview responses were content analyzed to determine the key qualities of the town’s character and the environmental features perceived to support its character, as well as those features that detracted from local character. This analysis involved simply totaling the frequency of times that specific features associated with the town’s character (both in terms of positive and negative contribution) were mentioned. Next, the projective maps were analyzed to identify views that were most frequently indicated and these were plotted on a composite map, which also dictated the vantage point locations from which photographs used in the photo Q-sort method were to be taken. Mean rating values from the Q-sort data, aggregated across all the respondents, were then calculated for each of the views. Standard deviation values were also calculated, which represent the degree of variation between people’s scenic assessment judgments, with lower values suggesting more agreement and higher values less agreement. Given the fact, that for most of the scenes, the degree of intra-group agreement (between respondents) was reasonably high (i.e. low standard

54

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

deviation values), it was concluded that the respondents shared substantially similar perceptions of the different landscape types/scenes as identified and assessed in the study. The results were useful for identifying the town’s character-image, as conceptualized by both the local residents and tourists, and the range of views and features felt to most strongly convey that image. The results suggested that collectively the respondents described the town as having a small town coastal feel that was very ‘commercial’ and ‘touristy’ yet also ‘relaxed’, ‘pleasant’, ‘beautiful’ and ‘friendly’. To many of the respondents, it was perceived as a ‘tropical paradise’, with elements of the natural environment, such as tropical vegetation, and views of the sea and surrounding vegetated hillsides, as strongly supporting this positive image. With respect to the social environment, the town was described as a ‘party town’ dominated by bars and nightclubs. A positive aspect of the town’s social landscape was the diversity of people and cultures apparent on the streets, both in regard to residents and backpackers. It was also seen as a place that was changing, yet at the same time relatively still underdeveloped. Elements of the natural environment, such as the sea, off-shore islands, natural vegetation and topographic variation represented the most positive elements and formed the substrate upon which the character of the town was built. These elements were the ones most important to conserve. In contrast, a range of built features, perceived to be ‘ugly’ and reflective of poor quality architectural design and construction, along with inappropriate signage, lack of quality landscaping, parking lots along the foreshore, and utility poles and wires were also identified as negative elements. These elements were regarded as strongly detracting from the town’s character and it was felt that they had to be discouraged through the Development Control Plan. 3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

As previously discussed, Australian coastal towns have experienced a host of environmental and social changes primarily due to development

related to tourism and growth in their populations associated with the ‘sea change phenomenon’. In response to these changes, residents and home owners in many destination communities are complaining that the valued character of their towns and individual neighborhoods is being lost and replaced by one that is more urban/suburban in nature. This section of the chapter reports on a series of studies that explored community perceptions of town character within several coastal towns located along the Great Ocean Road, in the southeastern Australian state of Victoria. The aim of the research was twofold – to explore conceptualizations of town and neighborhood character as held by residents and homeowners in these towns, and to develop and test a methodology that would have utility for assessing community perceptions of town character to support planning decision-making in terms of conservation of town character in these types of settlements. First, a brief overview of the study area towns is given. This is in no way intended to provide an in-depth geographic, social, economic or historical analysis of these places. This is followed by details of the methods used to collect and analyze data and about the respondents who participated in the studies. The results of these studies are presented in the next (Chapter 4). 3.3.1

Study area towns

The Great Ocean Road transects what is arguably one of the most scenic coastal regions anywhere in the world that is located so closely to a major metropolitan center, in this case Melbourne (Fig. 3.1). The region and the small coastal towns dotted along this stretch of coastline are under considerable pressure due to environmental and social changes resulting from tourism and town growth due to an influx of so called ‘sea changers’. The research was based on the assumption that people who live in these towns are the true experts when it comes to understanding town-character because they are the ones who interact with their local surroundings on a regular basis, and as a result, will be most sensitive to changes in these environments that might impact town character.

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

55

Fig. 3.1 The Great Ocean Road Region

56

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

The Victorian Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, recently warned that: The greatest threat to the Great Ocean Road is simply being loved to death, a fate that can only be avoided by careful, considered planning to prevent Gold-Coast style overdevelopment ruining the natural attractions that have appealed to so many people over the last 75 years1

From the perspective of the vast majority of residents and visitors to the various Great Ocean Road towns the most urgent need is to protect the distinctive character that these places possess and which is a major reason that these towns are seen to be so appealing. Construction of the Great Ocean Road commenced in 1919 as a means of providing employment to soldiers returning from WW1, and later for those out of work as a result of the Great Depression. Finally completed in 1932, it linked the various small coastal towns located along the coastline with Melbourne, making them more accessible where previously they could only be reached by boat or overland on rough, unpaved roads, first by horse and carriage, and later by automobile. Starting 100 km west of Melbourne, at the town of Torquay, the Great Ocean Road weaves its way 270 km along the shores of the Southern Ocean passing one of Australia’s most well-known natural icons, the Twelve Apostles, and terminating at the regional city of Warrnambool. On its way, it transects a highly diverse range of landscapes rich in scenic, biological and cultural assets. Collectively these landscapes, and the natural and cultural features that they possess, are instrumental in conveying the unique character that this region and the small towns located along this stretch of coastline possess. Most of these towns are located in close proximity to, 1 Media release from the Minister for Planning for the State of Victoria, Justin Madden, entitled ‘Great Ocean Road: 75 years old and still holding its own. April 9, 2007.

or border, extensive areas of preserved natural landscape, with the Great Otway National Park being the largest (indicated on the map in Fig. 3.1). While the research reported here primarily focused on the Great Ocean Road towns, the town of Port Fairy, despite its location 20 km west of Warrnambool where the Great Ocean Road technically ends, was also included in the study. The regional city of Warrnambool itself was not included as it was considered too large in comparison to the other towns, which are significantly smaller. In total, seven towns, located within four separate administrative areas, or shires, were selected for the research: Torquay, Anglesea, Aireys Inlet and Lorne (Surf Coast Shire), Apollo Bay (Colac Otway Shire), Port Campbell (Cornagamite Shire) and Port Fairy (Moyne Shire). Each of these towns are experiencing similar growth pressures, yet the associated environmental and social changes resulting from this growth are manifest somewhat differently in each as a function of their distance from Melbourne, size and composition of their populations, and the unique combination of biophysical characteristics associated with their geographic settings. While each of these towns has a permanent resident population, which ranges from less than 300 in Port Campbell to over 8,000 in Torquay, there are also significant numbers of people who own homes in these towns yet live more permanently elsewhere, typically in Melbourne. This is reflected in the fact that in some of these towns (e.g. Torquay, Anglesea, Aireys Inlet and Lorne) the number of unoccupied dwellings exceeds that of occupied dwellings for much of the year. Collectively, the towns selected for this research represent the range of ‘sea change’ type settlements, as outlined in the first chapter, from coastal commuter to coastal hamlet settlements. Traditionally these communities have relied on logging, fishing and farming (e.g. dairy and sheep) as their main sources of income. Tourism, which has been a part of the local economies of some of these towns since the late nineteenth century (e.g. Lorne) is becoming even more important as the viability of other sources of revenue disappears, such as is happening

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

with logging and fishing in towns like Apollo Bay. All of these places are popular vacation spots for both domestic and international tourists, with close to 3 million visitors a year staying at least one night in one or more of the towns, and well over 5 million day-trippers visiting the area annually. Tourism alone is estimated to generate close to 1 billion dollars per annum for the area and provide a significant number of jobs for people living in these communities (Victorian Department of Infrastructure 2001b). The first of the study area towns that one encounters when traveling west from Melbourne is Torquay, located at the beginning of the Great Ocean Road (Fig. 3.2). This town has the largest population of the towns studied with a little over 8,000 residents at the time of the research (2003–2006). There were also approximately 4,500 dwellings in the town, a quarter of which were owned by people who only occupy them for a part of the year and resided elsewhere (e.g. Melbourne) at other times. Torquay is a wellknown beachfront holiday and surfing destination, with the world famous Bell’s Beach, the site of international surfing competitions, located just a short distance to the west. The production and sale of surfing paraphernalia – surfboards, clothing – now forms a part of the local economy. Over the last several years the town has experienced significant growth, partially due to its proximity to Melbourne, and along with Apollo Bay because the state government has designated it as a ‘growth area’ town. Changes in land uses, driven by town growth, have resulted in transformations in town character, as illustrated by the conversion of agricultural land for residential development (Fig. 3.3). This town possesses the characteristics of both ‘coastal commuter’ and ‘coastal lifestyle’ type settlements because it is an easy commute to the regional city of Geelong, 20 km to the east. It is also attractive to large numbers of short-term visitors and part-time residents who come for its beaches and related recreational activities and because of its closer proximity to Melbourne, hence enabling shorter travel time from the city. A growing number of people who are still in the workforce are moving to the town and commuting to work, while older people are retiring to the town in increasing numbers.

57 Fig. 3.2 Torquay

Anglesea, located 16 km west of Torquay, had, at the time of the study, a population of a little over 2,000 (Fig. 3.4). Like Torquay, significant numbers of the town’s dwellings (in fact 65%) are left unoccupied for much

Fig. 3.4 Anglesea

Fig. 3.3 Torquay: transformation in land-use and town character

of the year. Located at the mouth of the Anglesea River, the town features a long, wide expansive beach, visually dramatic rocky shoreline cliffs and extensive areas of conserved natural vegetation, including ecologically

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

important coastal heathland vegetation. This town has traditionally been a favorite holiday destination for people from Melbourne and typifies an Australian seaside ‘resort’ community with its influx of holiday homeowners and summer campers, as well as a year-round resident population. Many of its residents are committed to protecting the town’s unique qualities in the face of increasing development pressures. The Anglesea golf course has become a tourist attraction where people come, especially international visitors, to view kangaroos that can be seen there anytime of the day. While the town has been able to retain significant areas of remnant indigenous vegetation, which has helped in retaining its unique character, it is also the site of a large open pit coalmine and associated aluminum smelter that has been controversial. Aireys Inlet, and the associated hamlets of Fairhaven, Moggs Creek and Eastern View, are located 11 km west of Anglesea, and at the time of the study collectively had a population of just over 1,000 (Fig. 3.5). Like Torquay and Anglesea, a significant number of the town’s dwellings are unoccupied for much of the year. The town has a landmark lighthouse and associated historic buildings, a wide and long sweeping, flat sandy beach along with a number of smaller beaches located at the base of a series of visually dramatic coastal cliffs. Aireys Inlet, like Anglesea, has also been able to preserve extensive areas of indigenous vegetation, including areas of coastal heathland vegetation. It is also surrounded by the 100,000 km2 Great Otway National Park, effectively limiting the town’s growth. Lorne, a popular tourist destination located 20 km west of Aireys Inlet, is built into the slopes of forested hills overlooking a sheltered bay (Fig. 3.6). It too is bordered by the Great Otway National Park. First established in the 1870s, at which time it was popular among hinterland farmers as a coastal retreat, it has more recently experienced significant development pressures due to tourism and a large influx of ‘sea changers’. Due to the town’s steep topography, and the spectacular views of the sea this offers, along with significant numbers of large, mature Eucalyptus trees and a number of

59

surviving historic structures, the framework of the town’s character has, to a large extent, been retained. Many of the older houses have, however, been recently bought up, torn down and replaced with large McMansions. Recent development along the town’s foreshore, such as a parking lot, a life saving club building and demolition of an historic pier and its replacement by a decidedly ‘out-of-character’ new pier, has also had a significant impact in transforming the town’s character. A startling example of this transformation involved the demolition of a lawn bowling court and clubhouse that had long been a fixture of the foreshore and a favorite gathering place for the elderly residents. During the course of the research the bowling lawn and clubhouse were replaced with a large, brutal looking parking lot (Fig. 3.7). In response to such changes, a local citizen’s group, Friends of Lorne, has been formed and been active in trying to stop developments from occurring that they feel will be ‘out-of-character’. The area newspaper, The Echo, regularly runs articles expressing the deep dissatisfaction of local residents and visitors to the town, who are concerned that the town’s unique character is being lost and replaced by one that is more urban in nature. Forty-five kilometers west of Lorne is the town of Apollo Bay (Fig. 3.8) and the associated settlement of Merango. At the time of the study these settlements had a combined resident population of 1,200. As in the other towns, approximately half the town’s dwellings are left unoccupied for much of the year. This town was established in the mid 1800s as a center for logging, and later dairy farming and commercial fishing. However, few historic buildings remain due to the devastating Black Friday bushfire of 1857 that swept through the town and destroyed most of the earliest structures. Unlike Lorne, which is sited on a sloping site in a forested setting, the landscape in which Apollo Bay is sited is dominated by rolling grassy hills and long and wide sweepings beaches. The Braham River, which empties into the bay and runs between the town center and the associated settlement of Merango, has its origins in temperate rainforests that lay a short distance inland from the town.

60

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

Fig. 3.5 Aireys Inlet

From Apollo Bay, the Great Ocean Road veers inland winding its way through the heart of the Great Otway National Park, a large area of protected coastline and forestland, before returning to the coast near the small

settlement of Princetown. From here it again hugs the coastline on its way to the next of the study area towns, Port Campbell (Fig. 3.9). On its way, it transects the highly scenic coastal landscapes associated with the Port

Fig. 3.6 Lorne Fig. 3.7 Lorne: Lawn bowls court and clubhouse converted to foreshore parking lot

62

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

Campbell National Park, with its spectacular limestone coastal rock formations. Over the year many of these geologic features have acquired names, such as The Twelve Apostles, Gibson’s Steps, Loch Ard Gorge. These features are instrumental in characterizing this coastal landscape. The small hamlet of Port Campbell itself, with a permanent population of less than 300, is set within this dramatic landscape (Fig. 3.10). Originally settled in the later part of the nineteenth century due to its protected harbor, the town today attracts large numbers of both domestic and international visitors who come to experience this unique landscape, particularly to see the Twelve Apostles.

Fig. 3.8 Apollo Bay

While the Great Ocean Road officially terminates at the regional city of Warrnambool, the study area, as previously mentioned, was extended to incorporate the historic town of Port Fairy, located another 28 km west of Warrnambool off the Princes Highway (Fig. 3.11). Port Fairy is approximately a 4-h drive from Melbourne, and as a result its population is comprised of more permanent residents than the towns closer to Melbourne. It is one of the oldest ports in the state of Victoria and was first settled by whalers and sealers in the early 1800s. This town is unique in that many historic buildings from the mid to late 1800s have survived, with over 50 formally listed as protected historic places. This includes a number of small cottages, the state’s oldest licensed pub (The Caledonian) and other well-preserved historic buildings. Situated at the mouth of the Moyne River, which provides a save harbor for both fishing and pleasure boats, the town’s character is largely defined by the historic buildings, the river, foreshore dunes, beaches and Griffith Island, a small sand island connected to the harbor area via a short causeway. This island is undeveloped, except for a visually prominent lighthouse. But it is home for part of the year (from September to April) to a large colony of Short-tailed Shearwater birds, commonly known as Mutton Birds. A most unusual sight occurs here every year, precisely within a day or two of September 22nd, when thousands of these birds return to the island to give birth after a 2 month, 15,000 km migration from the northern regions of the northern hemisphere. Residential development is, however,

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

63

Fig. 3.9 Port Campbell

64

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

Unfortunately it was not adequately protected and overgrazing and weed infestation resulted in extensive degradation of its landscape. However, in 1961 it was made into a State Game Reserve and by the late 1960s the area had been completely re-vegetated, which involved planting of some 300,000 trees, the layout of which was based on an 1855 painting of the site by the landscape painter Eugene von Guerard, before it was grazed. This resulted in the site being returned to a remarkably natural-looking and ecologically functioning condition, and is now home to over 200 species of birds, including large numbers of resident emus, as well as numerous mammals, including kangaroos, wallabies and koalas. 3.3.2

Fig. 3.10 Port Campbell’s landscape setting

transforming the character of this town, some of which is highly unsustainable. For example, sand dunes in a number of places are being leveled on which houses are being built to obtain views of the sea, impacting on the town’s character (Fig. 3.12). Near Port Fairy is the Tower Hill State Game Reserve, the site of an extinct volcano, and now home to a diverse range of indigenous flora and fauna. This place was identified by respondents in Port Fairy as a feature of particular importance to the area’s character, even though it is some 16 km east of the town. Tower Hill was recognized very early as an important geological feature, and as such was made a public nature reserve in 1892.

Data collection methods

A multi-stage methodology incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection was developed to identify landscape features, both natural and built, associated with the character of the study area towns, as well as those features perceived to detract from the character of these towns. This involved collecting data at both the scale of towns (town character features) and individual neighborhoods within the towns (neighborhood character features). The research aimed to explore the following questions: • What landscape features do residents and homeowners in these towns consider most supportive of the character of the towns and individual neighborhoods? • What landscape features do they consider most detract from the character of the towns and individual neighborhoods? • To what degree do they consider these features to be compatible or incompatible with town and neighborhood character? • How do they evaluate these features in terms of their beauty, naturalness, distinctiveness, and in the case of vegetation, also messiness? • How do they conceptualize their individual neighborhood areas?

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

65

Fig. 3.11 Port Fairy

66

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

• Are there any differences in perceptions of town character between people who live full-time in the towns and those who own houses in the towns, yet primarily reside elsewhere? • Does length residency influence the way people conceptualize town character, and if so how? • Does the type of environment that people had grown up in influence the way they perceive town and neighborhood character in these settings? The various data collection methods were administered sequentially starting with a projective-mapping mail questionnaire, followed by a series of photo-rating workshops and subsequent focus groups, and finally face-to-face interviews using a multiple photo-sorting technique. The photo-sorting method was used to collect both quantitative and categorical data from which ‘perceptual maps’ were later generated. Specifically, the methods and sequence of their administration entailed: • An initial projective-mapping mail questionnaire to identify salient town and neighborhood character features. • Photographic documentation of the most frequently identified features in the projective maps. • Photo-rating workshops used to collect quantitative perceptual data with respect to the ‘character compatibility’ of the stimuli features and with regard to several other evaluative dimensions, including degree of perceived beauty, naturalness and distinctiveness. • Focus groups used to help interpret, from the perspective of the local residents, the results of the photo-rating workshops. • Multiple photo-sorting interviews to understand the perceptual structure of community conceptualizations of the various town’s character.

Fig. 3.12 Development on dunes in Port Fairy: without (top) and with development (bottom)

While the projective-mapping questionnaires and the photo-rating workshops were administered in all seven towns, focus groups and the multiple photo-sorting interviews were administered in only three of the towns.

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

3.3.2.1 Projective mapping This method, in its simplest form, simply asks respondents to indicate on a map of a particular study area those attributes, features or characteristics that are of interest to the investigation (Coulton et al. 2001). The idea is to elicit information that can provide insight into how aspects of a study area are perceived or understood based on respondent knowledge of the area. The greater familiarity the respondents’ have with the place, the more detailed the resultant maps will be. This method has proven useful in addressing a broad range of research questions where the phenomenon under examination can be geographically located. For example, it has been used to define neighborhood areas as conceptualized by residents in highly urban settlements (Hunter 1974) and even used with children to explore perceptions of their neighborhood areas in rural India (Parameswaran 2003). As previously discussed, Palmer (1983) used this technique to identify landscape scenes within the context of a small coastal town in the United States as did the author in two previous studies, one in the town of Airlie Beach in Queensland, Australia (Green 2000b) and another on the island of Koh Samui in Thailand (Green 2005). In the present research, this technique was used to identify landscape features salient to local perceptions of town and neighborhood character. From analysis of the resultant data from these maps stimuli elements were identified for use in subsequent data collection methods – photo-rating workshops and multiple-photo sorting interviews. The projective mapping questionnaires were mailed to households in each of the towns in which respondents were asked to identify, on the enclosed maps, those features they felt were most important to their town’s character and those they felt most detracted from its character. The most frequently identified features were subsequently photographed and used as stimuli in the other data collection methods. In earlier studies (Green et al. 1985b) the author had used a participatory photography method for this purpose (to identify features for use as stimuli for other methods). A similar participatory photography technique had been previously used by Cherem (1973) and Cherem and Driver (1977) but within the context of purely

67

natural environments. However, the author found this method to be too enormous on the respondents, resulting in identifying only limited ranges of features. Since in the present research the respondents were simply asked to imagine that they are going to take a set of photographs of features that they felt were important to town character, and indicate how they would take those photographs, and from which vantage points, larger and more diverse sets of features were able to be identified. For these studies the researcher actually took the photographs rather that the respondents, however, information was elicited as to how they would take the photographs if they were actually going to take the photographs themselves. Analysis of the projective maps allowed a range of salient features to be identified, both at the scale of the entire towns, and in four of the towns, Torquay, Anglesea, Aireys Inlet and Lorne, also at the scale of individual neighborhoods, which allowed conceptions of ‘neighborhood character’ to be explored in an effort to understand how the respondents conceptualized the geographic area of their neighborhoods (e.g. boundary configurations). Projective-mapping questionnaires were distributed to all households and homeowners in Apollo Bay (including those who only lived in the town part-time). In Port Campbell and Port Fairy they were only sent to those with telephone numbers listed in the phone book. In the other towns, Torquay, Anglesea, Aireys Inlet and Lorne, only property tax payers were sent questionnaires. In these towns, a significant proportion of the respondents owned homes in the towns but only resided in them for part of the year, for example in summers and/or on weekends, and lived more permanently elsewhere, mostly in Melbourne. Renters, who represent a relatively small percentage of the residents, would have been missed in these towns. The questionnaires incorporated two A3 format maps of the town, on which respondents were instructed to:

68

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations Think about where you would take a set of photographs to show the features and/or places that you consider most important to the character of the town. On the enclosed maps indicate the locations where you would take these photographs using an arrow to indicate the direction of view. Number each arrow and then list the features that you would include in each of your photographs as they correspond to the numbered arrows on the map in the blank spaces provided

Respondents were also instructed to indicate, on the enclosed maps, in the same way, those features that they felt ‘most detracted’ from the town’s character.

that it made to town-character. Both data from the projective maps and information supplied by an ecologist familiar with the local areas was used to identify specific plant types and plant communities that were later assessed. The various plant types were associated with several broad vegetative communities including: • • • • •

Moonah Woodlands Messmate Stringybark Woodlands Swamp Gum/Riparian Complex Heathlands Coastal Complex (which includes various Dune and Coastal Heath species)

In those towns where data were collected at both the scale of the entire town and at the neighborhood level, an additional map was included with instructions to indicate the types and locations of ‘neighborhood character’ features. Respondents were also asked to delineate (draw) the geographic area that they felt represented their neighborhood and give written reasons explaining why they considered that area to be their neighborhood. Specifically, they were asked to:

The ecologist mapped areas where these plant communities could be photographed and also rated the vegetation occurring within these associations in terms of their ecological value. These ratings were later used to explore relationships between ecological value, related to the specific plant types/communities, and perceived ‘compatibility with town character’ of these various plant types.

• Draw a line around the area you consider to be your neighborhood. • Indicate with an X where your house is located within the neighborhood area. • Identify the features you believe to be ‘most important to the character’ of your neighborhood area. • Identify the features you believe to be most ‘detracting of the character’ of your neighborhood area.

3.3.2.2 Photographic inventory of town features Features within the various towns, that were most frequently identified as ‘in-character’, and those identified most often as ‘out-of-character’, were subsequently photographed. The photography was guided by both the locations of the features as indicated on the projective maps and details provided by the respondents in the form of written descriptions in response to the question that asked them to describe how they would take photographs if they were photographing the features themselves, and from which vantage points they would take them. Content analysis of this data resulted in identifying large numbers of features/ places, typically several hundred in each town, from which smaller sets were selected for use as stimuli in both the photo-rating workshops and multiple photo-sorting interviews. This was done by selecting the

Content analysis of the projective mapping data from two of the towns, Aireys Inlet and Anglesea, suggested that vegetation was a very important element involved in the way the respondents conceptualized the character of these towns. This prompted an additional, more detailed study, within these towns exploring perceptions of vegetation and the contribution

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

most frequently mentioned features within different categories (e.g. natural features, new development, historic features, etc.), weighted by the times the types of features in each category had been identified in the projective maps within each town. For example, newer developments were most frequently identified as incompatible with town and/ or neighborhood character, and consequently more of these types of features were selected for use as stimuli for the photo-rating workshops to represent ‘out-of-character’ features. However, all the various types of features were represented in the final stimuli sets to varying degrees and an equal amount of features identified as ‘in-character’ and ‘out-ofcharacter’ were also used. To minimize potential bias that can result from varying photographic image quality, an effort was made to take photographs in as straightforward and documentary manner as possible. This entailed taking similar types of features – e.g. houses, vegetation, geological features, etc. – in similar ways, including producing images with the same relative amount of sky and filling the picture area with the depicted feature(s) to a similar degree. An effort was also made to take photographs on days with similar weather conditions (sunny) and at similar times of the day (in the morning and later in the afternoon). At the workshops and photo-sorting interviews respondents were instructed to rate/sort the depicted features as they were familiar with them and merely use the images as a trigger for their memory. Each of the depicted features was also labeled, which were derived from the way the features were most frequently named by respondents in the projective maps. In two of the towns, Aireys Inlet and Anglesea, additional photographs were taken to represent specific types of locally occurring vegetation, which, as previously mentioned, had been identified from both content analysis of the projective maps and from information provided by an ecologist familiar with the local area. The ecologist first identified the range of plants and plant communities occurring in each of the towns and then

69

photographed areas where these plants could be found. These field photographs were subsequently re-photographed by the researcher in order to have consistency in the images. In addition, plants that were frequently identified by respondents in the projective maps from these two towns were also photographed. In total, 604 features/places were photographically documented across the seven towns (which included 60 photographs of plant communities). The number of photographs used in the photo-rating workshops in each town varied slightly, for example Aireys Inlet and Anglesea were assigned more because photographs of vegetation were also included. The number of images used in each town for the photo-rating workshops included: • • • • • • •

Torquay – 84 Anglesea – 109 Aireys Inlet – 104 Lorne – 81 Apollo Bay – 70 Port Campbell – 68 Port Fairy – 88

3.3.2.3 Photo-rating workshops Photo-rating workshops were held in each of the towns. Respondents were recruited from the pool of names collected through the mail projective mapping questionnaires in response to a question asking them to indicate if they were willing to participate in future exercises associated with the research. Those that indicated a desire to participate were sent invitations to the workshop held in their town. At the workshops respondents were shown, in random order (displayed via a digital projector on a large screen) the set of stimuli photographs for their town. They were first briefly shown the entire set of images in order to familiarize them with the full range of features/places they would be asked to assess. They were then shown each of

70

the images for 30 seconds and asked to record their responses in a preformatted response-recording booklet. This booklet contained four, seven point, bi-polar rating scales. These were assigned to each of the rows, and the columns were labeled with the stimuli photograph numbers corresponding with the numbers of the displayed features. The first of the rating scales was used to rate the depicted features/places with regard to the degree of perceived ‘compatibility’ with town character, from strongly compatible (1) to strongly incompatible (7). The other scales were used to measure perceived ‘beauty’ (beautiful – ugly), ‘distinctiveness’ (distinctive – ordinary) and naturalness (natural – artificial). Past research had found these perceptual dimensions to be strongly associated with perceived placecharacter in similar Australian coastal towns (Green 1999, 2000b). As mentioned, in two of the towns, Aireys Inlet and Anglesea, participants were also asked to rate photographs of vegetation using the above scales, plus an additional one to measure perceived ‘messiness’ (neat – messy). This scale was included to test a theoretical proposition that suggests that natural settings with high biodiversity are often perceived as visually messy, and this in turn has been associated with lower levels of visual attractiveness (Nasseaur 1995). Each workshop took approximately between 45 min to 1 h, depending on the number of photographs being assessed, which varied between the towns and if vegetation was also being assessed or not. Data gathered from the workshops were analyzed by generating simple mean ratings and standard deviation values for each depicted feature/place, which were aggregated across all respondents for each town. This data was also subjected to other statistical techniques, as will be discussed in more detail later. 3.3.2.4 Focus groups Subsequent to analysis of the workshop data, focus groups were held with the aim of having a small sample of residents help interpret the results of the photo-rating workshops. The focus groups were composed of between 10 and 12 community members who lived in various neighborhoods within

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

the towns where this type of data was collected (Torquay, Anglesea, Aireys Inlet and Lorne). Participants were asked to look at only the stimuli photographs that depicted built features, which were presented to them grouped by neighborhood precinct, and in the order of how they had been rated at the workshop (by ascending aggregate mean values derived from results of the character compatibly scale). Aggregate standard deviation values for each stimuli photo were also displayed. The meanings of these statistical values were explained to the participants. For example, they were told that any feature (building) associated with a mean value between one and two meant that the respondents at the photo-rating workshop collectively rated that feature as strongly compatible with the town’s character and features that had received a mean rating of between six and seven were considered to be strongly incompatible with town-character. A value of four was neutral. While viewing the photographs, which were digitally projected on a large screen, participants were probed for reasons to explain why they thought the depicted developments had been rated the way they were. They were particularly questioned about attributes of the features/buildings that they thought contributed to the way they had been assessed. 3.3.2.5 Photographic sorting interviews Various photographic sorting methods have been used to generate both quantitative and categorical data with respect to how respondents’ mentally conceptualize sets of stimuli elements. A multiple photo-sorting technique was used in this research within three of the towns (Lorne, Apollo Bay and Aireys Inlet) to explore the perceptual structure of community conceptualizations of the character of these towns (Bimler and Kirkland 1998; Groat 1982; Scott and Canter 1997; Real et al., 2000; Weller and Romney 1988). Instead of digital images, photographic prints were used as the stimuli, which had been mounted on cards with labels printed below each image. The interviews involved the respondents sorting the sets of photographs, which had been derived mostly from those that had been used in the photo-rating workshops, into groups so that all photographs in each group were in their estimation similar in some respect. They could

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

71

sort the photographs into as many groups as they wanted using any criterion for categorizing them that they wished. While the number of photo groups varied, each grouping had to be composed of at least two photographs. After all the photographs were sorted, the respondents were asked to verbally label the categories they had created and describe the sorting criteria they used in making their groupings (Fig. 3.13). In this way, both denotative and connotative meanings, associated with the depicted settings/ features in each grouping, could be elicited.

recorded on data sheets and later used to construct two types of data matrices. These matrices and the statistical methods used to analyze these matrixes is discussed below.

Both the categorical data (words used by respondents to describe their photographic piles) and photo co-occurrence data (number of times photographs occurred with other photographs within groupings) were

3.3.3.1 Content analysis Data gathered from the projective maps were content analyzed to identify the most frequently mentioned features/places in relation to their contribution to town and neighborhood character, as well as those features/places perceived to most detract from the character of the various towns. General descriptions of town character derived from these questionnaires, as well as comments made in the focus groups, were, likewise, content analyzed.

3.3.3

Data analysis

A range of analytical methods was used, including content analysis and various statistical methods, in analyzing data generated from the various methods as previously discussed.

To identify the most frequently mentioned features, an initial perusal of the maps from each town was done, from which sets of content categories were formulated. The various content codes (features) were representative of several broad categories: • Built features – predominately residential houses, multi-unit residential and commercial developments • Natural features – e.g. vegetation, wildlife, geological features • Views • Access and circulation routes – e.g. roads, paths

Fig. 3.13 Multiple photo-sorting method

The content codes had to be both comprehensive in scope and mutually exclusive so there was no confusion with respect to where individual features/places were to be coded. A spreadsheet was set-up for each town in which the various content codes (features/places) were assigned columns, and separate cases (each questionnaire) were assigned rows.

72

The analysis simply involved tallying the frequency that specific features that had been identified in the projective maps and coding them into the corresponding content codes. The number of content codes varied across towns but ranged from approximately 50 to over 100 depending upon the town and the response rates. Both specific features, and types of features as indicated in the projective maps, were coded. In those towns where neighborhood character was also explored, additional content analyses were undertaken to identify salient features at that environmental scale. After all items for a town or neighborhood had been coded the frequency of the times each of the features were mentioned within each content category were tallied across all the respondents within each of the towns. The features/places most frequently identified, and the associated vantage points that the respondents had indicated where photographs of these features could be taken, were then plotted on composite maps of each town, which were later used in the field to guide photographic documentation of the features/places. Data collected from the projective maps at the neighborhood level were also overlaid so that a number of discrete neighborhood precincts could be defined in each town. This allowed the data collected in response to other questions to be aggregated by neighborhood precinct. The neighborhood sketch maps were also content analyzed from a structural perspective by coding the different maps by boundary configurations. These ranged from small, regularly shaped areas that centered on the immediate area of the respondent’s home, to larger, irregularly shaped areas that included various nearby areas, such as beaches and forested areas, and in some instances these covered the entire town (Fig. 3.14). In addition to asking respondents to spatially define their neighborhoods in the sketch maps, they were also asked to describe why they felt the area they had drawn represented their neighborhood. These descriptions were also

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

content analyzed and this data was subjected to Principal Component Analysis. Comments elicited in the focus groups were content analyzed to identify key attributes, both positive and negative, that the participants identified in relation to each of the depicted buildings. For example, participants might have suggested a reason to explain why a particular development had received a rating suggesting that it was strongly compatible with a town’s character (a mean between one and two) was because of its ‘warm earthy colors’, ‘surrounding, indigenous vegetation’, its ‘large front setback’, ‘curved roof lines’ and ‘light and airy appearance’. Likewise, a building that had been rated in a way suggesting that it was perceived to be strongly incompatible with a town’s character (a mean from six to seven), might have been described as being ‘too large’, lacking ‘surface articulation’ and ‘vegetation screening’. By analyzing the content of these comments across all the neighborhoods ranked lists (by frequency of mention) of attributes were developed that reflect characteristics associated with the full range of buildings assessed in the photo-rating workshops. 3.3.3.2 Principal component analysis of neighborhood descriptions As mentioned, responses to the question in the projective mapping survey asking respondents to describe what it was they felt defined the character of their neighborhood were collected in four of the towns. This data was further analyzed for three of the towns - Torquay, Aireys Inlet and Lorne - by using the frequency of items mentioned, within the different content categories, to construct data matrixes (frequency of times content variables were mentioned by cases) for each of the towns. These matrices were subjected to Principal Component Analysis. The aim of this analysis was to identify a limited number of underlying factors that could summarize the response patterns within these different data sets. This analysis was first done for each of the towns individually and also for two groups of respondents within each of the towns, those who lived in the towns permanently and those who owned homes in the towns but lived in them

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

73

Fig. 3.14 Neighborhood sketch map examples

74

for only part of the year. This was done in an effort to determine if there were any discernable differences between these two groups in how they conceptualized the character of their neighborhood areas. Once this was done for the three towns individually, and it was apparent that essentially the same factors were underlying the responses, the matrices were concatenated across all three towns (for each of the groups separately – full-time and part-time residents) and these were subjected to Principal Component Analysis. Examination of the screen plots produced for the composite matrices suggested an eight-factor solution with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 explained a reasonable amount of the variance in each of the data sets (over 40%) and were reasonably interpretable. These solutions were orthogonally rotated using the varimax rotation method to obtain the simplest structures, and thus giving the most interpretable results. 3.3.3.3 Descriptive statistics Data derived from the rating scales collected at the photo-rating workshops, used to measure the degree of perceived compatibility with town-character and perceived degree of beauty, naturalness, distinctiveness and also messiness for the vegetation scenes, were analyzed by generating simple descriptive statistics. This consisted of generating mean and standard deviation values aggregated for each photograph (feature/place) across all respondents. To explore possible sub-group differences, for example between participants who lived in the towns full-time and those who lived in them only part of the time, independent samples t-tests were performed on the rating of each feature/photo using residency status as the grouping variable. ANOVA and t-tests were also used to test for sub-group differences with respect to length of residency, the type of environment the respondents had grown up in – a large or regional city or a rural or small-town setting, age group and gender. Correlation analysis was used to explore relationships between the character compatibility ratings and responses to the other scales – beauty, naturalness and distinctiveness. Results of these analyses showed that the data from these scales (beauty, distinctiveness and naturalness) were all highly correlated with the character compatibil-

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

ity ratings. While the results from analysis of the data derived from the character compatibility scale are primarily used in reporting the results in the next chapter, data from the other scales allowed profiles of meaning to be generated for groups of features identified within the MDS results. 3.3.3.4 Multidimensional scaling analysis The two types of data generated from the multi-photo sorting interviews were used to create two types of data metrices. One was composed of photo co-occurrence data; the number of times each photograph was matched with other photographs across the stimuli sets. This matrix was transformed into (dis)similarity data and subjected to Classical Multidimensional Scaling Analysis (CMDS) (Fenton and Pearce 1988; Hair 1995; Nasar 1988) using the Alternating Least Squares Scaling algorithm (ALSCAL) (Takane et al. 1977). MDS is a very useful method because it is capable of representing perceptual structures in a visually illustrative format allowing ‘hidden’ relationships between variables to be explored. It is a technique that is more appropriate for generating hypotheses than testing them, but it is particularly suited for researching elusive psychological phenomena where relevant variables are unknown a priori (Golledge 1976). It is one of the very few statistical methods useful for addressing phenomenological questions as it seeks to discover relationships between variables, while still preserving essential relationships between the stimuli elements within a generalized perceptual space, such as the perceptual space representative of people’s conceptions of a town’s character. The form of MDS used here, where a single aggregate data matrix has been used as input, produces output that is representative of one hypothetical average respondent (Forgas 1985). Multidimensional Scaling Analysis (MDS) was originally developed in the 1950s but has since has been used in a wide range of disciplines, including marketing, psychology, ecology, tourism studies, landscape studies and others (Gollege 1976, Schiffman et al. 1981). Researchers studying

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

environmental perception have employed various MDS techniques to investigate the structure of human responses to natural (Fenton 1985; Hull and McCarthy 1988; Ward 1977), architectural (Groat 1982; Hall et al. 1976; Oostendorp and Berlyne 1978), residential (Horanyangkura 1978; Nasar 1988) urban (Geller et al. 1982; Hanyu 1993) and small town (Green 1999) environments. While there are many multidimensional scaling and unfolding techniques, they are all capable of representing results in a geometric, spatial format to visually display underlying patterns and structure in appropriate data sets. This allows the relationships between stimuli elements (e.g. landscape features) to be graphically represented, and the structure of the response pattern visually examined. Generally, studies employing MDS have used distance data that directly reflects the respondents judgments of the perceived similarity or dissimilarity between stimulus elements. This type of data is generally collected using methods requiring respondents to judge the similarity of elements to one another, such as the multiple photo-sorting technique does, and sometimes to also articulate the degree of similarity between elements (Golledge 1976). Such non-verbal approaches have the advantage of allowing respondents to use any criteria they choose in discriminating between the stimulus elements. However, interpretation of the resultant stimulus configuration plots, sometimes refereed to as ‘perceptual maps’, generally involves the researcher interpreting the meaning of emergent dimensions and neighborhood groupings based on his or her own judgments. Respondents, or others with particular knowledge of the stimulus elements, can also be involved in the interpretation (Green 2005). The spatial distance between stimulus elements, as displayed in MDS stimulus configuration plots, graphically illustrates the perceived (dis) similarity of stimulus elements in n-dimensional perceptual space. In other words, elements located near each other in these plots are representative of those elements that share similar attributes, while those farther apart are perceived to be more dissimilar. Patterns created by the spatial

75

distribution of the elements relative to one another can indicate higher order dimensions that suggest how the respondents discriminate between the stimulus elements. The most common way of interpreting a MDS stimulus configuration is to search for linear patterns, particularly those running through the configuration that may suggest characteristic differences in the stimulus elements. One typically starts by looking for differences in the elements that occur at opposing sides of the configuration. In addition to this dimensional approach, examination of clusters of stimulus points (neighborhood groups) is also useful because it can suggest meaningful relationships between the stimulus elements that may not be apparent by just looking at the underlying discriminating dimensions. Interpretation of neighborhood groupings is most useful for identifying similarities between stimulus elements, while the dimensional approach is better for suggesting dissimilarities between elements (Kruskal and Wish 1990; p. 45). Other statistical techniques, such as hierarchical cluster, regression and discriminant function analyses, and the use of complementary data sets, can also be used to guide the interpretation and to assist in labeling emergent dimensions and stimuli groupings (Carroll and Wish 1974; Forgas 1979; Golledge 1976; Green 2005). In the MDS plots, presented in the next chapter, clusters of stimuli points (representing groups of landscape features) form ‘neighborhood groups’, suggesting that they have some perceived similarities, such as possessing similar physical attributes and/or conveying similar meanings. The configurations displayed in these plots can be freely rotated because the coordinates of the stimulus elements are based purely on the distance relationships between the elements. This is similar to a geographic map that can be orientated in any manner without affecting spatial relationships between places; it is merely a convention that maps are oriented to the north. Data

76

can be represented in as many dimensions as attributes measured; however, the aim of the analysis is to reduce the data to a few dimensions within ‘goodness of fit’ limits. Goodness of fit represents the degree of fit between the raw data and the MDS model (Kruskal 1964; Kruskal and Wish 1990). Generally, the fewer dimensions, the easier the configuration is to interpret, however, too few dimensions may miss salient underlying patterns in the data. 3.3.3.5 Categorical principal component analysis The categorical data generated from the multiple-photo sorting data was analyzed using Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA). This method, sometimes referred to as Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA), is similar to MDS in that it is used to graphically display data sets in n-dimensional perceptual space (Kennedy et al. 1996). However, the input for this technique is multivariate categorical data rather than (dis)similarly data (Meulman 1998). This technique both quantifies categorical data, and at the same time reduces it, as would occur in conventional Principal Component Analysis. However, rather than assuming a linear relationship between the variables it can accommodate mixed measurement levels of data (nominal, ordinal, interval). Input data can be derived from a range of methods that allow contingency tables to be constructed. In the case of the multiple-photo sorting data were arranged in tables that were in the form of descriptive words (descriptors) by features (photographs). 3.3.3.6 Combining MDS and CATPCA results From results of the MDS analyses, spatial coordinates of the stimulus elements, as represented in the stimulus configuration plots, were combined with the categorical data in a way similar to what has been refereed to as ‘vector fitting’. This was done by graphically representing both stimuli elements (e.g. landscape features) and variables (e.g. meanings associated with these features) using an Optimal Scaling method, which allows multiple data sets at different levels of measurement to be scaled and combined. The beauty of this technique is that it can generate bi-plots to graphically

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

display relationships between stimuli elements (e.g. landscape features) and categorical variables (e.g. descriptors used in describing the stimuli elements) to reveal relationships between these different types of data. These bi-plots display multiple axes representative of different variables (e.g. descriptors), and associated component loadings, that transect the bi-plot such that the angle between stimulus points (features) and the vectors suggests degree of association – the smaller the angle the closer the association and vice versa. This combination of Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and Categorical Principal Component (CATPCA) analyses is unique in that it can display relationships between stimulus elements and associated meanings, which was seen as necessary as the study’s aim was to identify relationships between specific landscape features and a multidimensional, holistic and consensual community image of the character of the various study area towns. 3.3.4

Respondents

Data was collected from a total of 1878 respondents across the seven study area towns. Sample sizes varied between towns according to town population and between the different methods used for collecting data (see Table 3.1). As mentioned, the projective mapping questionnaires and community photo-rating workshops were administered in all seven towns, while the focus groups and multiple photo-sorting interviews were only held in three of the towns. In total, 1,344 completed projective mapping questionnaires were collected across the seven towns, with response rates ranging from 5% (Torquay) to 15% (Lorne), with an average of 11%. While this is fairly typical for mail questionnaires, the responses cannot be assumed to be necessarily representative of the communities under investigation. However, the demographic characteristics of the respondent groups in the various towns did reflect reasonably well the actual demographic profiles of the communities at the time of the study (from 2003 to 2006), at least with respect to those demographic questions that were asked in the questionnaire. The notable

3.3

Studies Along Australia’s Great Ocean Road

77

Table 3.1 Sample sizes by data collection method by town (1,878 respondents for all methods across all towns) Torquay Anglesea Aireys Inlet Lorne Apollo Bay

Port Campbell

Projective mapping surveys Photo-rating workshops Focus groups Multiple photo-sorting Respondent totals

24 17 – – 41

293 34 12 – 339

300 36 12 – 348

exception was the fact that very few young people responded (under 21 years of age). Typically, older people and those with higher levels of education are more likely to respond to mail surveys of this type, than are younger people and those with lower levels of education. Since the survey did not ask about education level, this variable could not be assessed. With lower response rates there is also the possibility of non-response bias, which means that those who responded to the survey may somehow be systematically different to those that did not respond, in this case with respect to how they conceptualize town and neighborhood character. The fact that there was a reasonably large degree of repetition in terms of the types of features that were identified in the projective maps suggests the features identified in each of the towns did represent the collective views of the communities reasonably well. There were also many features that had been identified that were unique to individual respondents or groups of respondents, particularly at the neighborhood level, suggesting that the projective mapping method was also suitably sensitive – meaning they did not merely identify a small set of the same features in each town. Respondents to the projective mapping questionnaires and participants in the photo-rating workshops were composed of nearly equal numbers of males and females who ranged from 21 to over 70 years of age. Most of the respondents were, however, of middle age and relatively few younger (21–30 years of age) and older (over 70 year old) people responded or

230 45 10 20 305

263 72 – 26 361

140 102 – 30 372

Port Fairy 94 18 – – 112

participated from each of the towns. In Torquay, Anglesea, Aireys Inlet, Lorne and Apollo Bay the samples consisted of both respondents who lived in the towns full-time and those who lived more permanently elsewhere, typically Melbourne, and only visited their homes in the study area towns during certain times of the year. The percentage of part-time residents generally closely mirrored the actual number of dwellings that are left unoccupied in these towns for much of the year. Of those who lived in the different towns on a permanent basis, length of residency varied from under 1 year up to 85 years, with an average of 15 years. In Port Campbell and Port Fairy the samples consisted primarily of those who lived full-time in the towns. Across all of the towns an average 40% of the respondents had grown-up in a large/regional city and approximately the same number in a rural/small town environment with the others having a more mixed residential history, however, this did vary across the towns with the more remote towns having more people with rural environmental histories. Possible sub-group differences in terms of where the respondents typically resided, fulltime or part-time in the town, with respect to how they rated the character compatibility of the various features, was tested using t-tests. In a few cases there were significant differences found between the character compatibility ratings of full time and part-time residents. In almost all of these instances, the permanent residents rated the same scenes as less compatible with local character than did those who lived only part-time in the towns.

78

3.3.5 Assessing the methods Any methodology useful for assessing community environmental perceptions, as was the intention of the research discussed here, should measure what is purported to be measured, which in this case was community perceptions of town and neighborhood character. Past research in similar Australian coastal towns has shown that residents of these types of towns frequently use ‘town-character’ as a key criterion by which to judge the suitability of changes to their local environments (Green 1999, 2000a,b). The fact that the projective mapping questionnaires resulted in many of the same types of features being identified, which were also subsequently assessed in similar ways by people in the photo-rating workshops (e.g. low standard deviation values with respect to the ratings of individual features means there was high agreement with respect to the assessments) suggests that the respondents not only understood the assessment criteria but were also able to make very fine distinctions between the features based on this criteria. The aggregate mean rating values, in all of the towns, were also able to differentiate between the features very precisely and reliably using the seven-point character compatibility scale. This was confirmed when two different groups of respondents, in the same towns, independently assessed the same stimuli sets, as was done in Lorne and Apollo Bay, and the aggregate mean rating values were almost identical. This was

Chapter 3: Methodological Considerations

also demonstrated when duplicate photographs, that were inserted into the stimuli displays at the photo-rating workshops, also received almost identical aggregate mean ratings. This combination of methods allowed identification of a large range of salient features (town-character features), within each of the towns, and very precise assessments to be made with respect to the degree to which these features were perceived to contribute to, or detract from, the character of these towns. If this methodology simply differentiated between ‘in-character’ and ‘out of character’ features it would mean it was not particularly sensitive, and hence not very useful. However, that was not the case. In addition, for methods to be useful for planning purposes they should be easy enough for those typically responsible for making such assessments (e.g. town planners or the consultants they hire) to use them and also be affordable within budgets generally allocated for these types of studies. In this regard, the projective mapping and photo-rating workshops, used in this research, could easily be administered by anybody with a basic understanding of statistics in other towns. The major costs, besides labor in collecting and analyzing the data, were primarily related to postage for mailing the projectivemapping questionnaires.

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character In the last chapter a range of research methods, and details about their application, used in a series of studies that explored community perceptions of town character and its transformation within the context of several Great Ocean Road towns, were described. In this chapter the combined results of those studies are discussed.

4.1

Introduction

As previously discussed, the focus of this research was on identifying assemblages of landscape features, both built and natural, that are instrumental in either supporting or detracting from the character of the various towns and their individual neighborhoods as perceived by people in the study area communities. Results of the projective-mapping surveys, photo-rating workshops, focus groups and multiple photo-sorting interviews, when combined, provide a detailed picture of the way these different communities conceptualize the character of their towns and how that character has been impacted and transformed by development and other environmental changes associated with recent growth in these towns. This transformation in place character is something that is occurring in many places around the world and which tends to follow a particular pattern over time, as illustrated in the drawing depicted in Fig. 4.1. The results presented in this chapter are communicated, to a large extent, by the photographs of character-defining features that had been used as stimuli for the various data collection methods. Sets of photographs depicting character-defining features were grouped into typologies and it is these typolo-

gies that are relied upon throughout the chapter to help communicate the results, based on the premise that one picture speaks a thousand words. In this way, collectively these photographic typologies speak many thousands of words. Photographic depictions of the features in each of the typologies illustrate in very direct ways how the respondents conceptualized the character of their towns because they were the ones responsible for selecting them and assessing the features in terms of their compatibility with the character of their towns and individual neighborhoods. Below each of the images the name of the town where the feature is located and the associated aggregate mean and standard deviation values, derived from analysis of the photorating workshop data, are given. The depicted features are ordered, within the typologies, from those that had been rated most compatible with towncharacter to least compatible. While these typologies are meant to be purely documentary in nature, to display the findings of the research, they do possess a unique aesthetic value in themselves, reminiscent of the encyclopedic approach used in the nineteenth century to display, and group according to botanical and zoological taxonomic classification, different plants and animals. They are also evocative of the work of certain photographers, such as the German photographers Bernd and Hilla Becher and their systematic documentation of typologies of industrial buildings (Ziegler 2002). Open-ended questions contained in the projective mapping questionnaires provided general descriptions of the character of the study area towns and begin to identify key environmental features that convey the character of these towns as perceived by people in these communities. Analysis of these descriptions identified similar attributes associated with the character of the different towns, in both a positive and negative sense. This is reflected, for example, in descriptions of Apollo Bay’s character that members of that community (n = 498) most frequently used in describing it as a ‘beautiful’, ‘quiet’, ‘relaxed’, ‘distinctive’ and ‘pleasant’ place and one having a ‘small, coastal, village-like fishing town atmosphere’ with ‘strong character’. Socially it was described as a ‘friendly’, ‘family orientated’ place for ‘holiday-makers’. But it was also seen to be an ‘over-developed’,

Fig. 4.1 Transformation in place character as depicted in ‘A Short History of America’ by Robert Crumb

4.2

Place Character Features

‘overly commercial tourist town’ that ‘lacked proper planning’ and one that was ‘changing’. Respondents in each of the individual towns, with some variations, described the character of their towns using very similar adjectives – ‘beautiful’, ‘quit’, ‘relaxed’ ‘distinctive’, ‘pleasant’, ‘village-like atmosphere’, ‘friendly’, ‘small’, ‘coastal’. They also identified similar problems – e.g. ‘overdevelopment’, the fact these places were ‘changing’ and that they ‘lacked proper planning’ to deal with the impacts of this change. While these general descriptions are interesting in themselves, to be useful for planning purposes more specific information about potentially manageable features of the environment linked with these qualities are needed. From analysis of the projective mapping data, a range of such environmental features in each of the towns was identified that, to varying degrees, were perceived to be either compatible or incompatible with the character of these towns. These ranged from various types of natural features, including different types of vegetation, geologic features, wildlife and a host of other natural features, which were overwhelmingly perceived to be the most strongly supportive of the character of these towns, to historic elements and a few contemporary built features that were also identified as instrumental in conveying local character, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree than were natural features. In each of the towns, remarkably similar types of features were identified and these could be grouped into distinct categories, or typologies. This was also true for those features that had been identified as detracting from the character of the different towns, which were overwhelmingly in the form of residential and commercial buildings that shared similar physical attributes. As discussed in the last chapter, buildings that had been identified in the projective maps, and subsequently assessed at the photo-rating workshops, were used as stimuli in a series of focus groups that involved local residents in suggesting why these buildings might have been rated the way they were, either in a negative or positive sense. When these comments were analyzed, a range of physical attributes, associated with the different buildings, could be identified. This information was seen as particularly

81

useful for planners and architects because by knowing about such attributes an attempt can be made to embody them in the design of future buildings and at the same time discourage negative attributes, those associated with developments that had been rated as ‘out-of-character’. Data generated from the multiple-photo sorting interviews also revealed characteristics associated with the various character-defining features, as well as the meanings respondents associated with these features. In two of the towns, Anglesea and Aireys Inlet, additional studies were conducted to explore the contribution that vegetation made to the character of these towns. A significant finding from these studies was that a strong correlation seems to exist between the way people in these communities assess the ‘character compatibility’ of different plant types and vegetative communities, within the context of these towns, and the actual ecological value of these plants, suggesting that the residents, at least in these communities, share a definite community ‘ecological aesthetic’ (Gobter 1999). The neighborhood sketch maps, which were also collected from the projective mapping questionnaires, provide particular insights into the way people in these communities conceptualize the geographic and spatial characteristics of their individual neighborhoods, and the types of features that they consider instrumental in conveying the character of these areas. These results suggest that while each person conceives of their own neighborhood in a uniquely individual fashion, there are distinct underlying commonalities shared between residents who live in close proximity to one another. 4.2

Place Character Features

As mentioned, analysis of the projective maps identified a large and diverse range of landscape features, which respondents felt either contributed to, or detracted from, the character of their towns and individual neighborhoods. Literally hundreds of specific features and types of features within each of the towns were identified. People within each of the

82

towns identified many of the same types of features, but there were also those features that were unique to particular neighborhoods identified by fewer numbers of people. As mentioned in the last chapter, selections of the most frequently mentioned of these features, within each of the towns, were used as stimuli in the photo-rating workshops. This allowed each of the features to be assigned an aggregate mean and standard deviation value reflecting its degree of perceived ‘character compatibility’. As discussed, these ratings are based on a seven-point, bi-polar rating scale that the individual respondents used to judge the displayed features in terms of their degree of compatibility with town-character. This data was aggregated across respondents within each of the towns to reflect collective assessments. To reiterate, features associated with aggregate mean ratings of between 1 and 2 means those features would have been perceived as strongly compatible with the town’s character while those receiving a mean rating of between 6 and 7 would have been perceived to be strongly incompatible with the town’s character. Any rating over 4 indicates that the feature was perceived, to varying degrees, to be ‘out of character’ and any feature receiving a rating below 4 means that it was perceived to be ‘in-character’ to some degree. The standard deviation values, which were also aggregated across the respondent groups, is a measure of central tendency that reflects the degree to which respondents varied between each other in terms of their assessments. A standard deviation of zero would mean everybody in the group rated the feature exactly the same way. Where there are large standard deviation values it suggests there was more variation in how people assessed the feature. This value, therefore, reflects the degree of consensus among the workshop participants in terms of their assessments. Generally, there was reasonably high agreement among respondents in terms of how they assessed the individual features, which tended to be the highest (lower standard deviation values) with regard to those features that had been rated the highest and lowest in terms of their compatibly with a town’s character. Some features that fall near the middle (mean ratings

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

closer to 4) were associated with slightly more variation in the way that they were assessed (higher standard deviation values). Both the aggregate means and standard deviation values are listed below the photographs of features as presented throughout this chapter. The other scales used in the workshops were included to measure the perceived beauty (beautiful – ugly), naturalness (natural – artificial) and distinctiveness (distinctive – ordinary) of the depicted features. As mentioned in the last chapter, there was a strong correlation found between the character compatibility ratings and responses to these scales, which suggests that the character compatibility scale was capturing most of the variance in the responses. This means that typically when a feature received a high rating in terms of it perceived compatibility with a town’s character, it also received a similarly high rating in terms of perceived beauty (r = 0.97) and distinctiveness (r = 0.96). While perceived naturalness is more dependent upon the actual physical characteristics of the feature, it too was highly correlated with the character compatibility ratings (r = 0.91). This is because those features that were rated as most compatible with town-character, which were overwhelmingly natural features, were, as one would expect, also rated as more ‘natural’ than those that had been rated as less compatible, which were overwhelmingly built features. Those features that had been rated as strongly ‘out-of-character’, that were overwhelmingly built features, were similarly rated as correspondingly more ‘artificial’, ‘ugly’ and ‘ordinary’. This suggests that the assessment criterion, compatibility with town character, is linked in the minds of the respondents with more general preferences and both positive and negative profiles of connotative meaning, with respect to the features/places being assessed. In terms of assessments of vegetation (in the two towns where this data was collected) there was also a strong correlation found between perceived compatibility of vegetation with town character and naturalness (r = 0.97), as well as beauty (r = 0.93) and distinctiveness (r = 0.88), however, surprisingly, not with ‘messiness’ (r = 0.145). But, as previously mentioned, there was a strong correlation between actual ecological value of the plants/plant communities that were tested and their perceived compatibility with town character.

4.2

Place Character Features

In reporting the results throughout this chapter primarily only rating values derived from the character-compatibility scale are reported. When the stimuli features that had been assessed at the photo-rating workshops are arranged in ascending order by aggregate mean values, from those that had been rated most highly compatible with town-character (means closer to 1) to those that had been rated as most incompatible (means closer to 7), for each town, a distinct pattern is revealed. Those features perceived to be most ‘in-character’ (mean ratings from between 1 and 2) were almost exclusively associated with the natural environments, including scenes of the sea or other water bodies, areas of indigenous vegetation, coastal geological formations and a host of other natural features. Those features that were rated as only moderately compatible with town character (mean ratings between 2 and 3) were typically a mixture of natural elements in the context of more culturally modified environments, historic buildings and a few newer buildings, including some residential houses and commercial establishments associated with various positive attributes, as identified by the focus group respondents. Those features that had been rated as only slightly compatible with town-character are mostly built features, including houses and commercial buildings associated with some positive attributes and that are associated with either significant vegetation and/or views of natural features, particularly the sea. Those features that had been rated to varying degrees as incompatible with town character (mean ratings over 4) are almost exclusively buildings, including a large range of residential and commercial developments. As the mean ratings associated with these features get larger, meaning that they were perceived to be progressively less compatible with town character, they also tend to get physically larger in scale, tend to be newer rather than older, have a more ‘boxy’ appearance, are increasingly less likely to be associated with vegetation, they tend to be highly visible from roads and other public spaces, and possess a range of other physical attributes that had been identified by the focus group respondents as reasons why they might have been

83

perceived to detract from town character. Remarkably, this same pattern was found in each of the towns. This progression, from most to least compatible with town character, is illustrated for two of the towns, Lorne in Figs. 4.2 and 4.3, and Aireys Inlet in Figs. 4.4 and 4.5. While the features associated with these two towns represents only sub-sets of the entire range of features identified in those towns (it would take several pages to show them all for any one town) they provide examples that clearly show how the types of features change as they progress from those perceived to be strongly compatible with the town’s character (lowest mean ratings) to those that had been rated as highly incompatible (higher mean ratings). While specific features obviously vary from town to town the same types of features were identified in each town. As previously mentioned, these feature types could be categorized into various typologies – e.g. beaches, geologic features, vegetation, historic built features, new large developments, out-of-character and in-character houses, etc., examples of which were found in each of the towns. However, the proportion of features that fit into the different typologies did vary from town to town. For example, in places like Aireys Inlet proportionally more natural features, including views of the sea, beaches, coastal rock formations, water bodies, vegetation and vegetated areas and wildlife (e.g. grazing kangaroos and distinctive birds) were identified more often than in some of the other towns, such as Port Fairy where proportionally more historic buildings were identified. This is a reflection of the fact that in Aireys Inlet more in-tact natural environmental features still exist, while in Port Fairy more historic buildings remain, including many small historic cottages and community buildings that date from the mid-to-late 1800s. In most of the towns, however, few historic buildings still remain, primarily because they had been lost in bushfires or torn down at times when conservation of heritage features was not deemed as important as it is today. In other towns, such as Torquay, there were proportionally more newer, large houses, identified as moderately to strongly incompatible with the town’s character, a reflection of the town’s recent growth and lack of adequate controls on development within

84

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.2 Features rated most compatible with the character of Lorne

4.2

Place Character Features

85

Fig. 4.3 Features rated least compatible with the character of Lorne

86

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.4 Features rated most compatible with the character of Aireys Inlet

4.2

Place Character Features

87

Fig. 4.5 Features rated least compatible with the character of Aireys Inlet

88

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

the planning regulations. Still, overall, the same types of features across the various towns were identified, suggesting that the same processes are responsible for erosion of town character; namely loss of natural and historic features and the introduction of new, large scale developments that are perceived to be strongly incompatible with town character. 4.2.1

Built features rated incompatible with town character

As previously mentioned, the vast majority of ‘out-of-character’ features were buildings of one kind or another. The only natural features that had been rated as ‘out-of-character’ were specific plant species that are weedy and/or exotic (non-native to Australia), and these were only identified in Aireys Inlet and Anglesea where the contribution of plants to town character were studied. In a few instances natural environments that had been damaged by land development had been rated as incompatible with town character, for example a newly built road in a recently developed residential subdivision in Aireys Inlet that, in the process of its construction, had destroyed areas of indigenous vegetation. In a few instances, views of predominantly natural landscapes, which would have most likely been rated more positively, were rated as strongly incompatible with town character because power poles were present in the views. Built features identified from the projective maps, and later assessed at the community photo-rating workshops, were also associated with specific physical characteristics by the focus group participants. These characteristics were also remarkably similar across the different towns. By analyzing the content of these comments in the different towns, and then collapsing the results, composite attribute lists could be formulated, one list of attributes associated with buildings that had been rated compatible with town-character and another for those buildings that had been rated as incompatible with town-character. Attributes most frequently associated with those buildings perceived to be incompatible with town character included their scale, in terms of their

height (e.g. three storeys or more) and mass relative to their contextual setting, their ‘bulky’ and ‘boxy’ appearance and the fact that they lacked adequate ‘surface articulation in their facades’. Many such buildings were also painted in colors that were considered to be too ‘bright’, ‘garish’ and ‘contrasting’, making them stand out from their surroundings. The lack of sufficient vegetation to screen them from roads and other public spaces was also a recurring comment. The design of many of these buildings was also described as representative of a ‘hotch-potch’ of colors, materials, roof forms, window types and architectural styles. These attributes, from those mentioned most to least, include: • Too big in terms of height and mass – two and particularly three storeys • A monolithic ‘boxy’ and bulky appearance • Highly visible from the road and natural open-space areas • Lacking in sufficient landscaping, or retained vegetation, particularly indigenous vegetation that had been removed during construction • A hotch-potch mix of colours, materials, designs, roof types, window types • Lacking in vegetation to screen them from roads and public open spaces • Small front and side property setbacks • Roofs visible above the tree canopy • Concrete or asphalt driveways that are too visually dominating and/ or cover too much surface area • Lacking articulation in their facades, thus giving them a stark looking appearance • Front fences, such as paling or other solid types of fencing • High density and site coverage • Traditional, clipped grass lawns In every town, large McMansion type houses and multi-unit residential dwellings were singled out as possessing one or more of these attributes and rated as correspondingly incompatible with town-character.

4.2

Place Character Features

There seemed to be a clear cumulative effect with regard to how these attributes influenced perceptions of the town character compatibility, or in this instance, lack of compatibility, such that the more of these attributes that were represented in a building, the more strongly it tended to be rated as ‘out-of-character’. Looking at the buildings displayed in Fig. 4.6, which illustrates single-family, detached houses, and Fig. 4.7, which illustrates multi-unit residential dwellings, both of which were assessed as incompatible with town character, relationships between these attributes and the degree to which these buildings were assessed as ‘out-of-character’ becomes obvious. In some instances, the siting of buildings and their situation in the landscape seemed to be partially responsible for their receiving lower compatibly ratings. For example, buildings sited on visually exposed hillsides or ridgelines or on top of sand dunes were typically rated as strongly incompatible with local character (Fig. 4.8). Another situation that seemed to be linked to negative assessments was when older buildings were juxtaposed with newer ones in unsympathetic ways (Fig. 4.9). In other instances, damage to natural landscapes during the construction of houses or roads seemed to be a contributing factor. Transformations in town-character, and people’s perceptual responses to these transformations, were also apparent with regard to changes in land use. This is illustrated by juxtaposing two scenes from the town of Torquay. One of these scenes is of agricultural land that had been rated as highly ‘in-character’, while the other is of adjoining land, which until recently, was similarly used for agriculture but is now the site of a newly built, large, single-family residential estate, which had been rated as strongly incompatible with the town’s character. The contrast in the way these two scenes were assessed dramatically illustrates how changes in land use can impact on town character (Fig. 3.3). Since this development was relatively new at the time of the study most of the respondents would have witnessed its construction. It is also situated in

89

a highly visible location (on the top of a hill so that the houses could obtain views of the sea). Hence, people would have been able to compare what it was like before and after its construction in judging its impact on town-character. In every town there were also a few industrial sites of various types, from a large open pit coal mine and aluminum smelter in Anglesea, a pharmaceutical factory in Port Fairy, a natural gas processing plant in Port Campbell to smaller light industrial areas in Lorne, Anglesea, Apollo Bay and Torquay (Fig. 4.10). These developments were also rated as incompatible with town-character to varying degrees. There was also a range of commercial developments identified in each of the towns, including various restaurants, retail shops, petrol stations, pubs, grocery stores, outdoor weekend markets and art galleries. Some of these developments were rated as compatible with town-character (Fig. 4.11), while others were regarded to be ‘out-of-character’ to varying degrees (Fig. 4.12). Likewise, different sorts of accommodation facilities were identified – hotels, cabins, trailers and bed and breakfast establishments – and these too were rated from strongly compatible to strongly incompatible with the character of the various towns (Fig. 4.13). For example, the building in Lorne that was rated the least compatible of all was the Cumberland Hotel, a large and visually dominant multi-storey building located on the main street (The Great Ocean Road) across from the beach. 4.2.2

Built features rated compatible with town character

In contrast to those features that had been identified as incompatible with town character were a range of built elements that had been identified as supportive to varying degrees of the character of the various towns. Buildings that had been rated as most compatible with town character were typically smaller, older and blended into their surroundings. This was in stark contrast to the larger, newer and visually dominant structures that were perceived to detract from local character as discussed above. Those built

90

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.6

Single-family detached houses rated incompatible with town character

4.2

Place Character Features

91

Fig. 4.7

Multi-unit residential dwellings rated incompatible with town character

92

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.8

Development in various landscape situations

4.2

Place Character Features

93

Fig. 4.9 Juxtaposition of old and new buildings

features that had been rated as most compatible with local character were typically historic buildings and to a lesser extent houses, and commercial buildings, which had been rated as moderately to slightly in-character (mean ratings of between 2 and 4), that tended to possess particular physical attributes, as suggested by the focus group participants. These buildings tended to be smaller in scale, screened by vegetation, particularly indigenous types of vegetation that had been planted or was retained during construction, were painted in warm, earthy, muted or natural colors, which make them appear to recede into the landscape, had larger setbacks and typically had no front or side border fencing, and had gravel rather than visually dominant concrete or asphalt driveways. Attributes associated with these buildings, by order of mention by the focus group participants, include: • Screened by vegetation, particularly indigenous types of vegetation • Relatively small in both height and mass • In colors that appear warm, earthy, muted, natural that blend with the surroundings that make them seem to recede into the landscape • Set within indigenous vegetation • Large setbacks and/or on larger blocks of land • Without border fencing

• Good landscape design • Gravel or other natural material driveways rather than hard paving (i.e. concrete) • Historic or reflective of physical attributes associated with historic buildings • Not higher than the tree canopy • Relatively simple in architectural design • Appearing to fit into the landscape (e.g. lines and forms of architecture reflect topographic forms) • Light and airy looking • Have curved lines in their architectural form, roofs and driveways • With open glazing • Not visually obvious from roads or public open space areas • Built of natural materials (e.g. timber, stone) • Have articulated wall and façade treatments • Present a harmonious mix of architectural forms – with moderate complexity Even a few larger scale, newer buildings were rated as slightly compatible with town character, which seemed to be a result of their possessing designs that incorporated the attributes listed above.

94

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Vernacular forms of architecture, in those towns in which examples of these still remain, were also typically rated as highly to moderately compatible with town character. These were typically small houses commonly referred to as ‘beach shacks’. The focus-group participants described these houses in positive terms as providing a nostalgic connection with the past and in some instances as being ‘endearingly rundown’. They also described them as in keeping with the style and architecture of the place at the time that they were built, mostly in the 1950s and 1960s. These houses are typically small in scale (generally single storey), painted in subdued or pastel colors, built of timber or ‘fibro’ materials, and in many instances are nestled into existing natural vegetation and/or have mature vegetation in their gardens. Many such ‘beach style’ houses also embody a range of distinctive architectural characteristics, such as shallow pitched ‘skillion’ type roofs and weatherboard siding. Examples of the range of these houses are presented in Fig. 4.14. The siting of buildings, and the degree to which they appear to blend into the surrounding landscape, was also identified as an important factor in buildings perceived as contributing to town-character. This was particularly true for those buildings set in areas of established indigenous vegetation (Fig. 4.15). Those buildings that were perceived to intrude on views of vegetation and nature reserves, the sea, beaches, coastal rock formations and freshwater bodies (e.g. rivers, ponds, wetlands, waterfalls) or other natural features were, in contrast, typically rated as more incompatible with local character, even in cases where their architectural form possessed some positive design attributes as attributes itemized.

Fig. 4.10

Industrial sites rated incompatible with town character

As mentioned, those buildings perceived to be most compatible with the character of the various towns were, in almost all cases, historic buildings, as was the case in Port Fairy and in the other towns where such buildings have survived. Many historic elements had been lost in bushfires that have devastated many of these towns in the past, such as the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983. In Apollo Bay the earliest structures were lost in the Black

4.2

Place Character Features

95

Fig. 4.11

Commercial development rated compatible with town character

96

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.12

Commercial development rated incompatible with town character

Thursday Bushfire of 1851. In Port Fairy, the one town where a significant number of historic buildings still exist, the town’s character is essentially based on a framework of such historic buildings (Fig. 4.16). For example, an old stone cottage, dating from the mid 1800s, was rated as the building most compatible with the town’s character and many other historic buildings were similarly perceived to be strongly ‘in-character’. The few remaining historic features in the other towns, such as Lorne, where an old stately

home and an historic stone, one-room schoolhouse remain, were also rated as strongly compatible with the town’s character. Likewise, in Torquay a few smaller historic buildings remain, including an historic home and an old butcher’s shop, both of which had been singled out as strongly compatible with the town’s character. In many cases historic buildings that had been rated as moderately to strongly ‘in-character’ were also associated with the presence of established vegetation, typically indigenous species

Fig. 4.13 Accommodation

Fig. 4.14 Vernacular ‘beach shack’ architecture

Fig. 4.15

Houses set in established vegetation

100

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.16 Historic buildings of Port Fairy

4.2

Place Character Features

of vegetation. For example, an historic home in Torquay, mentioned above, has magnificent mature Moonah trees (Melaleuca lanceolata) lining its front path (Fig. 4.17). This was also true for many older, but not necessarily historic, houses in other towns that had mature Eucalyptus trees in their gardens, elements that had also been rated as strongly compatible with the character of the various towns. 4.2.3

Natural features

Natural features were by far the most important elements in defining the character of the various towns and which form the foundation upon which the character of these towns is built. Features perceived to conflict or be visually dominate over the natural landscape in some way were often identified as incompatible with local character to varying degrees. Likewise, almost all newer built features that had been rated as compatible with local character blend, to some degree, with the natural landscape. Areas of indigenous vegetation and nature reserves, natural water bodies, geologic features, wildlife and other natural features were identified in each of the towns. These features were consistently rated as the most highly compatible with local character of all the feature types identified. Even in Port Fairy, where historic features tended to play a dominant role in conveying the town’s character, natural features, particularly those associated with the immediate coastline – sand dunes, beaches and coastal rock formation and areas of coastal vegetation – had been singled out and rated as highly compatible with the town’s character. In Anglesea, Aireys Inlet, Lorne, Apollo Bay and Port Campbell, natural features were the elements most strongly supportive of the character of these towns and were instrumental in forming the substrate upon which their characters are built. In each of the towns, many of the views that had been identified as extremely important in conveying local character, and rated as such at the photo-rating workshops, were of natural landscapes and particularly

101

ones where the sea was visible (Fig. 4.18). This is illustrated, for example, by the results from Aireys Inlet where out of the five scenes that had been rated as most strongly representative of the town’s character, four contain views of the sea. Likewise, in Anglesea the sea is depicted in three of the four most highly-rated scenes. Even built features, such as roads, that may not normally be perceived as particularly instrumental in conveying a town’s character, if they are associated with views of the sea, or lined with vegetation, such as mature trees, or contain both, were rated as more strongly compatible with town-character than they would otherwise have been (Fig. 4.19). Those roads that were perceived to be most ‘out-of-character’ were typically those that impacted on the natural environment in some way. Beaches, with their obvious association with the sea and coastal rock formations, were also repeatedly identified as elements that were strongly compatible with the character of various the towns. Beaches are one of the main attractions of these towns and a range of different types had been identified, from long, wide and sweeping expanses of sand, to small, intimate ones interspersed with rocks and often located at the base of coastal cliffs, and rated as strongly contributing to character in every town. Some of these beaches are more suited for swimming and are more public, while others are associated with surfing and still others appreciated solely for their scenic quality (Fig. 4.20). In several of the towns, such as Anglesea, Lorne, Port Campbell and Port Fairy, some of the beaches are associated with visually interesting, sometimes dramatically scaled, coastal rock formations. In some cases, smaller-scaled rock formations were identified as very important to town character. For instance, the most highly rated feature in Lorne was an area of unique rock formations visible on the ground at one part of the town’s shoreline. Likewise, in Port Fairy some of the beaches identified as strongly supportive of the town’s character are composed of sand interspersed with

Fig. 4.17 Heritage building typology

4.2

Place Character Features

103

Fig. 4.18 Views rated strongly compatible with town character

104

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.19

Roads

4.2

Place Character Features

105

Fig. 4.20

scattered, distinctively rounded, black (Basaltic) boulders, locally referred to as Pea Soup. However, some of the most visually dramatic geological formations, and which were rated as highly compatible with the town’s character, are those found at Port Campbell and the nearby coastline. The rock cliffs found here truly provide a sublime landscape experience that dominates the town’s character (Fig. 3.10). Many of the rock formations

Beach typology

along this stretch of coastline have acquired names, which have become internationally recognizable icons of the Australian landscape and attract a large number of both domestic and international tourists. The massive coastal cliffs visible from the main beach at Anglesea also highlight the importance of such geological formations. This coastal geological feature typology is illustrated in Fig. 4.21.

106

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.21

Coastal geological formations

4.2

Place Character Features

107

Sand dunes and associated vegetation were also identified in every town as important elements of their characters (Fig. 4.22). In some instances, modifications to dunes seemed to be a factor in the erosion of valued town character. For example, in Port Fairy two images of foreshore dunes were assessed at the photo-rating workshop, one which had been left intact and the other in which a line of houses and rental units had been built on the top of the dune. These scenes are of the same dune system, and located close to each other, yet the one that had been developed, and where the topography had been modified, was rated as ‘out-of-character’ (M = 4.28, S.D. = 1.93) while the intact dune was rated as highly compatible with the town’s character (M = 1.11, S.D. = 0.32). There was, however, a relatively high standard deviation value for the modified dune, suggesting some difference of opinion with respect to this assessment. Freshwater features – streams and rivers, ponds, wetlands and waterfalls – were also identified as integral elements associated with people’s conceptions local character in the towns. This is illustrated by the fact that in each town a river or stream was identified and rated as strongly supportive of the town’s character. For example, in Aireys Inlet, the four scenes rated most strongly compatible with town character all depict a river (Painkalac Creek), that runs through the town over which the Great Ocean Road passes. Views up the river valley and down to the sea from the road were all rated as extremely important in conveying the town’s character. The importance of rivers and streams was also highlighted in Lorne where the Erskine River came out as one of the prominent features associated with the town’s character. The Great Ocean Road passes over this river as it enters the main commercial district of the town. The Anglesea River was likewise identified as a key feature as was the Moyne River in Port Fairy. The Moyne River forms an integral part of the town’s character, which is supported by a number of associated cultural features, such docks and boats that moor along the river, which themselves had been identified as elements that are strongly compatible with the town’s character. In addition to rivers, various wetlands and waterfalls were also identified as strongly compatible with town character (Fig. 4.23). Wetlands were often associated

Fig. 4.22

Sand dunes

with wildlife, particularly birds, which in themselves were also identified as important elements, particularly in certain towns. Several waterfalls, including two in Lorne and one in Apollo Bay, were likewise identified as

108

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.23

Streams, rivers, wetlands and waterfalls

4.2

Place Character Features

strongly supportive of the character of these towns, despite the fact that they are located in preserved natural areas some distance away from the main part of these towns. Tower Hill State Game Reserve, as discussed in the previous chapter, is located some 16 km away from Port Fairy, but was still identified as very important to the town’s character. A large wetland area that is home to a large range of water birds dominates this natural reserve. In several other towns, wildlife in various forms had been identified and rated as strongly contributing to town-character (Fig. 4.24). Many more types of wildlife were identified in the projective maps than were photographed and used as stimuli in the photo-rating workshops. However, those that had been were consistently rated as strongly compatible with the character of the towns in which they occur, including several species of birds, for example, King Parrots in Lorne and Gang-Gang Cockatoos and various water birds in Aireys Inlet. These more ephemeral elements of the landscape were most often associated with particular landscape settings where these forms of wildlife could be seen, such as in the case of kangaroos at the Anglesea golf course and along the PainKalac Creek valley at Aireys Inlet. Paths, trails and boardwalks, and associated bridges that lead to, or pass through, areas of preserved natural landscapes were also frequently identified as integral components of the character of the various towns and particularly in neighborhood areas. These types of features were found in the context of different landscape settings – e.g. forests, wetlands, coastal foreshores and dunes. In towns such as Anglesea and Aireys Inlet paths through areas of coastal heathland vegetation were identified as particularly important as were those found along rivers and streams in some of the other towns. In several instances, these features were associated with views of visually spectacular natural landscape settings, for example the cliff top ‘Discovery Trail’ at Port Campbell and the trial that runs along the top of the coastal cliffs at Aireys Inlet, both of which transect areas

109

of unique coastal vegetation, and also provide dramatic views of the sea and coastal rock formations. Paths in the landscape that facilitate access to preserved natural areas, while not always providing spectacular views, were identified as extremely important in defining the character of individual neighborhoods. Figure 4.25 illustrates various types of paths, boardwalks and bridges that facilitate access to preserved natural areas and that had been identified as strongly contributing to the character of the various towns. Areas of conserved natural landscape in the form of nature reserves and parks at the local level, as well as national parks that border several of the towns, for example in Lorne, which is bordered by the Great Otway National Park, and Port Campbell, which is associated with the Port Campbell Coastal Park, were also identified as elements in the landscape that are felt to be strongly compatible with the character of the different towns (Fig. 4.26). Many of the smaller scale nature reserves were very important to the perceived character of individual neighborhood areas. Similarly, views of rural hinterland landscapes were identified in several of the towns as strongly compatible with town-character, as illustrated in Fig. 4.27. 4.2.3.1 Contribution of vegetation to town character In all of the towns, distinctive plants and areas of vegetation were identified in the projective maps and subsequently rated as strongly compatible with town and neighborhood character (Fig. 4.28). However, as mentioned in the last chapter, in Anglesea and Aireys Inlet, so many people identified vegetation as an important feature of the local character of those towns that additional studies were undertaken to explore, in depth, the contribution that vegetation made to the character of these places. Indigenous plant types, and areas where associations of indigenous plants could be found were, in particular, consistently identified in the projective maps and rated in the photo-rating workshops as strongly contributing to town and neighborhood character. In contrast, ‘exotic’ and weedy plant species were repeatedly identified as strongly incompatible with town and

110

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.24 Wildlife

neighborhood character. Indigenous types of vegetation, as opposed to exotic types, were also associated with a range of positive meanings. For example, in the photo-rating workshops held in Anglesea and Aireys Inlet

indigenous forms of vegetation, in addition to being rated as strongly compatible with town character, were also rated as highly beautiful, distinctive and natural. In all cases, exotic plant types, such as Pines, Cypress,

Fig. 4.25

Facilities for accessing natural areas – paths, boardwalks, and bridges

112

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.26

Palms, were rated as strongly incompatible with the character of these towns and also rated as ‘ugly’ and ‘common’, as opposed to ‘beautiful’ and ‘distinctive’ (Fig. 4.29). In a few instances indigenous species, such as Drooping Sheoak (Allocasuarina verticillata) and the environmental weed Coast Wattle (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) were identified in the projective maps as detracting from local character. However, in the photo-rating workshops they were still rated as being moderately ‘in-character’. In other instances indigenous species were rated as only slightly compatible with town character, includ-

Nature reserves

ing a stand of Prickly Tea-tree (Leptopermum continenetale) and Hop Goodenia (Goodenia ovata), and a wetland area that was invested with exotic weed species. The scene depicting the Prickly Tea-tree/Hop Goodenia complex was also rated as the most ‘ordinary’ of all the vegetation scenes while the weed-invested wetland was rated as the most ‘messy’. A roadside planting of Ironbark trees (Eucalyptus tricarpa), in the town of Aireys Inlet, and which was invested with the parasitic vine Dodder Laurel (Cassytha melantha), was also rated as somewhat less compatible with town-character than were other types of vegetation. This was most likely due to the presence of this parasitic vine. A few non-indigenous plants, yet

4.2

Place Character Features

113

Fig. 4.27

Rural hinterland views

species native to Australia, that had been used in public open-space areas, were also rated as somewhat less compatible with local character than were many of the locally indigenous species. The scene of vegetation that was highest in terms of compatibility with town character in Anglesea was one depicting a stand of mature Moonah trees (Melaleuca lanceolata) with an intact understorey of indigenous riparian plant species. These trees are located on the bank of the Anglesea River. This finding stresses the importance not only of this type of tree in its mature, sculptural form, but also of vegetation

associated with riparian environments, particularly in the context of the comparatively ecologically intact and protected settings where this stand of Moonah trees is located. In the projective mapping questionnaire people often commented on this type of tree with respect to two things; its distinctive form, particularly with respect to older specimens as these trees can live to very old ages, and that they should be retained. A stand of Grass Trees (Xanthorrhoea australis) was rated as most strongly compatible with town character in Aireys Inlet and very highly in Anglesea. In both towns, this plant was also rated as highly ‘distinctive’ (M = 1.33, S.D. = 0.80).

114

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.28

Distinctive vegetation from all towns

It is not surprising that scenes of the Messmate Stringybark complex (Eucalyptus oblique), depicted with an understorey containing Grass Trees, were rated so strongly compatible with town-character in both towns, as this is the dominant forest type in these towns. In fact, it was the second most-highly rated plant type with respect to Anglesea’s character and featured in many highly rated scenes in both towns. Scenes depicting Coastal Heathland vegetation, including flowering Heathland shrubs and flowers, were also rated as highly compatible with the character of these towns. In addition, scenes depicting Swamp Gum woodlands, particularly those associated with one of the local nature reserves (e.g. Kuarka Dora

Reserve), and scenes depicting Swamp Gum Riparian complex species, were also perceived to strongly contribute to the character of these towns. Dune vegetation, including Marram Grass, a species introduced in the early 1900s to help stabilize sand dunes, along with indigenous dune species, were likewise rated as making a significant contribution to the character of these towns. The only types of vegetation that were rated as incompatible with the character of these towns are introduced, exotic species of plants, some of which are also environmental weeds – e.g. Pampas Grass (Cortaderia

Fig. 4.29 Vegetation in Anglesea and Aireys Inlet: From most compatible to least incompatible with town character

Fig. 4.29 (continued)

4.2

Place Character Features

Fig. 4.29 (continued) Vegetation types by photograph numbers P-1: Grass Trees (Xanthorrhoea australis), Airey’s Inlet P-2: Messmate Stringybark Woodland (Eucalyptus obliqua) with intact heathy understory and Grass Trees, Airey’s Inlet P-3: Moonah Coastal Woodland (Melaleuca lanceolata ssp lanceolata) with riparian understory, Anglesea P-4: Intact Coast Tussock-grass Grassland (Poa poiformis) with riparian complex, Airey’s Inlet P-5: Coastal Heathland, Anglesea P-6 Messmate Stringybark Woodland (Eucalyptus obliqua) with intact heathy understory, Anglesea P-7: Common Heath (Epacris Impressa), Anglesea P-8: Swamp Gum Woodland (Eucaluptus ovata), Anglesea P-9: Hyacinth Orchid (Dipodium punctatum), Airey’s Inlet P-10: Marram Grass (Ammophila arenaria), Anglesea P-11: Dune Shrubland, Anglesea P-12: Heathland with forested background, Airey’s Inlet P-13: Grass Trees (Xanthorrhoea australis), Anglesea P-14: Heathland, Anglesea P-15: Riparian Complex with Swamp Gum Woodland, Anglesea P-16: Messmate Stringybark Woodland (Eucalyptus obliqua) with intact heathy understorey, Anglesea P-17: Messmate Stringybark and Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) Woodland with dense understorey, Anglesea P-18: Blunt Everlasting (Helichrysum obtusifolium), Anglesea P-19: Drooping Sheoke (Allocasuarina verticillata), Airey’s Inlet P-20: Messmate Stringybark and Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) Woodland with open grassy understorey, Anglesea P-21: Coastal Heathland Complex, Airey’s Inlet P-22: Swamp Gum (Eucaluptus ovata) Woodland with dense understorey and exotic grass, Anglesea P-23: Messmate Stringybark Woodland (Eucalyptus obliqua) with intact heathy understorey, Anglesea P-24: Coastal Heathland Complex, Airey’s Inlet P-25: Messmate Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua) with cleared understory, Airey’s Inlet

117 P-26: Sandy Gully vegetation; a mix of exotic and indigenous species, Airey’s Inlet P-27: Moonah Coastal Woodland (Melaleuca lanceolata ssp lanceolata), Anglesea P-28: Ironbark Woodland (Eucalyptus tricarpa) with Varnish Wattle (Acacia verniciflua) understorey, Airey’s Inlet P-29: Moonah Woodland, Airey’s Inlet P-30: Coastal Heathland, Anglesea P-31: Coastal Moonah Woodland (Melaleuca lanceolata ssp lanceolata), Anglesea P-32: Mixed Eucalyptus Woodland with Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) and Swamp Gum (Eucaluptus ovata) and cleared understorey, Airey’s Inlet P-33: Narrow-leaved Peppermint (Eucalyptus radiata), Anglesea P-34: Non-indigenous Southern Mahogany (Eucalyptus botryoides) with lawn understorey, Anglesea P-35: Drooping Sheoke (Allocasuarina verticillata), Anglesea P-36: Indigenous riparian vegetation inundated with exotic Buffalo Grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), Airey’s Inlet P-37: Remnant Moonah Woodland (Melaleuca lanceolata ssp lanceolata), Anglesea P-38: Ironbark (Eucalyptus tricarpa) showing canopy stress and Dodder Laurel (Cassytha melantha) infestation, Airey’s Inlet P-39 Prickly Tea-tree (Leptospermum continentale) with Hop Goodenia (Goodenia ovata), Anglesea P-40: Wetland with mixed indigenous and exotic species, Anglesea P-41: Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Airey’s Inlet P-42: Norfolk Island Pines (Araucaria heterophylla) and lawn, Airey’s Inlet P-43: Norfolk Island Pine (Araucaria heterophylla) and Willows (Salix alba), Airey’s Inlet P-44: The ornamental yet exotic environmental weed Agapanthus (Agapanthus africanus), Anglesea P-45: Monterey Pine Plantation (Pinus radiata), Anglesea P-46: The exotic environmental weed Pampas Grass (Cortaderia jubata) in the Painkalac Creek reserve, Airey’s Inlet P-47: Row of Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Anglesea P-48: Exotic plantings of Phoenix Palm (Phoenix canarensis) and Agave species at a resort, Anglesea

118

jubata) and the ornamental flower Agapanthus (Agapanthus africanus). Scenes depicting other exotic plant species, that were also perceived to be incompatible with local character, include a scene depicting Monterey Pines (Pinus radiata), often used in Australia in commercial forestry, and one with Monterey Cypress trees (Cupressus macrocarpus). The scene that was rated the most incompatible of all was one at a resort in Anglesea that featured Phoenix Palms (Pheoenix canarensis) and different Agave species. The fact that this scene had the river and mature Moonah trees, the plant that had been rated the most highly compatible with the character of this town, visible in the background may have also contributed to this scene being perceived to be so ‘out-of-character’. This was most likely due to the visual and ecological contrasts between these types of vegetation. The plants at this resort were also rated at the photo-rating workshop as the most ‘ugly’ (M = 5.14, S.D. = 1.59) of all the vegetation types that were assessed in Anglesea. An attempt was made to determine if the degree to which the different types of vegetation perceived to be compatible with the character of these two towns was also correlated, or not, with the actual ecological value of the various plants and vegetative communities with which they are associated. Indeed, a very high correlation was found between the respondents’ assessments of the different forms of vegetation in terms of their compatibility with town character and their ecological value as assessed by the ecologist. The ecological value of the different plant types was also found to be strongly correlated with the other meanings that respondents associated with them; indigenous plant species of high ecological value that were rated as strongly compatible with town character were also rated as highly ‘natural’ (r = 0.83) and ‘beautiful’ (r = 0.77). Exotic and weedy species, which were rated as strongly ‘out-of-character’, were also rated as highly ‘ugly’. These findings reveal something about the people in these communities (Aireys Inlet and Anglesea), who seem to associate plant species of high ecological value and areas of high biodiversity with high levels of perceived character compatibility, naturalness and

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

scenic beauty. There was no correlation found between ecological value and perceived ‘neatness’ or ‘messiness’, contrary to what was expected based on Nassauer’s (1995) findings from research that explored perceptions of diverse, indigenous ecosystems in the Midwest of the United States. In that research she found a relationship between landscape attractiveness and perceived neatness. However, there was some evidence in the present study to suggest that ‘cues to care’, which had been identified as contributing to landscape preference by Nassauer (1995), did influence evaluation of certain scenes where visible forms of vegetation management, such as fencing around areas of ecologically important vegetation in parking lots, were rated somewhat higher than might be expected, given the fact that the landscape was obviously culturally modified. One would expect that such obvious human manipulation of the landscape, in the form of parking lots and fences, would normally receive lower ratings. This suggests that through informed conservation and management strategies indigenous vegetation, biodiversity, scenic quality and town-character values can be maintained or even enhanced. As previously mentioned, the results also suggest the existence of an ‘ecological aesthetic’ as proposed by Gobster (1999), and because in the present study a high degree of agreement was found between the respondents in each town (there were separate photo-rating workshops held in each of the two towns), there seems to be support, at least in the context of the towns studied here, for the existence of a shared ‘community ecological aesthetic’. Likewise, support for an evolutionary predisposition for preference for certain spatial configurations associated with landscapes reflective of ‘savanna’ type settings, and tree forms associated with this type of landscape, was also found. This was suggested by scenes such as No. 16 and No. 20 as illustrated in Fig. 4.29, that depict Messmate Stringybark woodlands, which had been rated as strongly compatible with the character of these two towns. These woodland scenes are reminiscent of savannatype landscapes with respect to both the form of the tress and their spatial arrangement in the landscape.

4.3

Categorization of Character Features

4.3

Categorization of Character Features

Results of the Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and Categorical Principal Component (CATPCA) analyses of data derived from the multiple photosorting interviews also permitted the stimuli features to be categorized from the perspective of how the respondents, in the three towns where this method was administered (Aireys Inlet, Lorne and Apollo Bay), conceptualized the stimuli sets within each of those towns. Analysis of these complementary data sets (similarity and categorical data), generated from these interviews, allowed perceptual relationships between the stimuli features, and the meanings respondents associated with them, to be explored. By statistically linking these two data sets, relationships could also be graphically displayed in bi-plots, which reveal underlying structure in the response patterns. Evaluation of the different features in terms of their perceived compatibility with town-character, based on results of the photorating workshops, added another layer of information that was useful for interpreting relationships between the features and associated meanings as displayed in these bi-plots. As would be expected, those features that had been rated as strongly compatible with the character of the various towns were associated with positive meanings, and conversely, those that had been rated as strongly incompatible were associated with negative connotations. This can be clearly seen in the bi-plots, or what are sometimes referred to as ‘perceptual maps’, as they graphically display relationships between stimuli elements (e.g. landscape features) and categorical variables (e.g. descriptors used in describing the stimuli elements). Subjecting the similarity data to cluster analysis enabled ‘neighborhood groupings’ of features to be identified within the stimulus configurations, as illustrated in the bi-plots. The bi-plots illustrated here have numbered and colored points used to differentiate the different features according to their group affiliation. Features in the same groups are those that had been perceived by the respondents to be similar to other features in their same group and dissimilar to features in other groups. The greater the spatial distance

119

between features, and between groupings, within the plots, the greater degree of perceived dissimilarly and vice versa (Kruskal and Wish 1990). Similarities can be attributed to the features having similar biophysical characteristics and/or conveying similar cognitive/affective meanings. Within these plots, multiple axes, or vectors, are also illustrated that radiate out from the center and that are representative of the different categorical variables (e.g. descriptors). The positioning of vectors in relation to the stimulus points (features), and groupings of features, as displayed in these bi-plots, suggests relationships between the features and meanings within the context of the multidimensional perceptual space representative of the way the respondent groups conceptualized the character of their respective towns; the narrower the angle between stimulus points (represented by colored points in the bi-plots) and vectors (descriptors) the greater the degree of perceived association. Looking at the bi-plot for Lorne (Fig. 4.30), and the accompanying illustrations of features represented within the various neighborhood groups (Fig. 4.31), it is apparent that Group 1, which is composed of a variety of natural features, is intersected by vectors representing the descriptors ‘nature’, ‘beauty’, ‘trees’, ‘views’ and ‘native’. When the character compatibility ratings (from the photo-rating workshops) were aggregated across the features within this group it became apparent that collectively they were perceived to be strongly compatible with the town’s character and there was strong agreement between respondents in this assessment. In contrast, Group 3, composed of a collection of newer, larger buildings, primarily multi-unit apartment buildings, which collectively had been rated as highly incompatible with the town’s character, and about which there was also strong agreement, was associated with decidedly negative connotations. Vectors representing ‘poor design’, ‘problems’, ‘ugliness’, ‘newness’ and ‘lack of planning’ intersect this group. When the frequency of mention (in the multiple-photo sorting interviews) of descriptors used to describe features in Group 1 were tallied, it became clear that these features, as a group, were

120

overwhelmingly associated with the qualities of ‘naturalness’ (574 = number of times it was mentioned), ‘beauty’ (466) and ‘age’ (424) and a number of environmental features, including ‘vegetation’ (368) ‘beaches’ (203), ‘coastline’ (154) and ‘views of natural landscapes’ (130) were also mentioned. In contrast, features represented in Group 3, which had been rated as strongly incompatible with the town’s character, were most frequently associated with ‘inappropriate architecture’ (145), ‘lack of effective planning’ (99), ‘over development’ (79), ‘ugliness’ (57), ‘inappropriate streetscapes’ (54) and ‘degradation of the natural environment’ (48). A more in-depth description of each of these ‘neighborhood groupings’, as displayed in the bi-plot for Lorne, is given below. Group 1, as previously mentioned, is composed of a collection of natural landscape features that had been rated in the photo-rating workshop as highly compatible with the town’s character (M = 1.27, S.D. = 0.23). This consists of uniquely sculptural shoreline rock formations, a view of the sea, a tree fern gully – species Dicksonia antarctica – a river view (the Erskine River), two waterfalls, various shoreline views, the town’s main beach, wildlife (a pair of brightly colored King Parrots), various forest scenes, different types of indigenous vegetation (e.g. a remnant stand of Blue Gum trees – Eucalyptus globules) and other predominately natural landscape features. This group is intersected by vectors representing ‘beauty’, ‘natural’, ‘aesthetics’, ‘diversity’, ‘goodness’ and landscape features including ‘vegetation’, ‘trees’, ‘foreshore’, ‘views’, ‘nature’ and ‘natural attractions’. Group 2 is composed of a collection of historic buildings, which had been collectively rated as strongly to moderately compatible with the town’s character (M = 2.08, S.D. = 0.61), including a nineteenth century era house, two historic churches, an Art Deco period movie theatre, the old ‘Lorne Hotel’, the restored ‘Grand Pacific Hotel’ and a one-room, stone, historic school house. Features in this group are intersected by vectors representing ‘unique’, ‘historic’, ‘old’, ‘active’, ‘variety’, ‘with

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

atmosphere’, and displaying ‘good design’ and ‘good maintenance’. Features in this group were also associated with the concept of ‘neighborhood’. Group 3, as previously mentioned, is represented exclusively by new, large scale developments, including several newer three-storey apartment buildings, several ‘McMansions’ style single family houses, two newly-constructed toilet blocks located at the foreshore near the main beach and a newly constructed life saving club building, also adjacent to the main beach. In contrast to Groups 1 and 2, features in this group had been rated as strongly incompatible with the town’s character (M = 5.36, S.D. = 0.67). The Cumberland Hotel, the largest building in the town, which is located on the main street (which is the Great Ocean Road), and across from the foreshore, was rated in the photo-rating workshop as the feature most incompatible with the town’s character. Vectors intersecting this group suggest that these features were perceived to be ‘bad’, ‘ugly’, ‘unfamiliar’, with ‘problems’, and related to ‘lacking proper planning’ and of ‘poor design’. Group 4 contains a collection of smaller single-family, somewhat older, but not actually historic, houses, which had been rated in the photo-rating workshop as only slightly compatible with the town’s character (M = 3.70, S.D. = 0.23). Vectors denoting ‘changes’, ‘streetscape’, ‘built attractions’, ‘traffic’ and the ‘main street’ intersect this group. Group 5 is comprised of just two scenes – one depicting children kicking a ball on a grassed open space area in front of the main beach and another of a lawn bowling court, also at the foreshore, with elderly people from the community playing a game. Together, these two scenes were rated as moderately compatible with the town’s character (M = 2.37, S.D. = 0.63). Shortly after this photograph of the lawn bowling court was taken, it was replaced with an asphalt parking lot. One can predict that if the same respondents were to assess the same place now (as a parking lot), in terms

4.3

Categorization of Character Features

121

Fig. 4.30 Lorne Bi-plot

of its compatibility with the town’s character, it would receive a much more negative rating (Fig. 3.7). Vectors intersecting this group represent ‘recreation’, ‘community’, and ‘tourists’. Group 6 is composed of several features associated with foreshore amenities and the town’s commercial district, located along the Great Ocean Road

and across from the foreshore area. These features were rated as only slightly compatible with the town’s character (M = 3.89, S.D. = 0.90) and include two restaurants/cafes, one of which was originally a ‘beat’ coffee house dating back to 1954, a contemporary café with outside tables, a small grocery store and a line of older, low-rise shops across from the beach area. Features in this group were associated with many of the same

122

descriptors (vectors) as groups 3 and 4 – ‘changes’, ‘streetscape’, ‘built attractions’, ‘traffic’ and the ‘main street’. Another way of understanding relationships between the stimuli features, as represented in the perceptual space displayed by the bi-plot, is by identifying underlying perceptual dimensions. This is done by looking for patterns in the spatial distribution of the stimuli elements (features) relative to one another that indicate their location along higher order dimensions. In the case of the Lorne bi-plot (Fig. 4.30), and corresponding feature groupings (Fig. 4.31), two underlying dimensions are revealed. One (Dimension 2) extends from the lower left to the upper right hand side of the plot, which discriminates between the features along a ‘natural to built’ environment continuum. This is related to the degree of ‘naturalness’ of the features in Group 1, located at one end of this dimension, which is composed of a variety of natural features (located at the lower left-hand side of the plot). Group 3 (located on the far lower right-hand side of the plot), and which is composed of a variety of large, newer ‘McMansion’ style houses and multi-unit apartment buildings, is located at the other side of the plot. The existence of this dimension was also suggested by the way features in Group 1 were rated on the natural–artificial rating scale, suggesting that they were perceived to be highly ‘natural’ elements in contrast to features in Group 3, which were rated as highly ‘artificial’. These groups were also associated with significantly different compatibility ratings, with Group 1 features being rated as strongly compatible with the town’s character while features in Group 3 were perceived to be strongly incompatible, suggesting that this dimension (Dimension 2) not only differentiates features along a natural to built continuum but also by the degree of perceived compatibility with town-character. A number of previous studies have identified a similar natural-built environment dimension, typically associated with landscape preference, where the more natural a feature or scene is perceived to be, the more preferred it is, and the more artificial the less preferred (Hartig and Evans 1993; Herzog 1989; Ulrich 1981).

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

A second dimension is also apparent in the Lorne bi-plot that appears to discriminate between features based on their perceived age. This dimension (Dimension 1) is roughly orthogonal to the other dimension (natural to built) and is evident by looking at the spatial positioning of features in Group 2, which are older, historic built features and which had been rated as strongly contributing to the town’s character. This group is located at the upper center of the plot. In contrast, Group 3, as previously discussed, is composed of a collection of larger, new buildings, and is located at the lower right hand side of the plot. These features were rated as strongly incompatible with the town’s character. This dimension, like the other one, is also correlated with the character compatibility ratings – Group 3 features were perceived to be strongly ‘out-of-character’ while Group 2 features were rated as moderately to strongly ‘in-character’. Discrimination of landscape features based on perceived age, along such a temporal dimension, has also been reported in both the landscape perception literature (Herzog and Gale 1996) and suggested in the more theoretical literature, as discussed Chapter 2. The presence of these two dimensions suggests that the qualities of naturalness (more natural) and the age (older) of the features are strongly associated with the town’s character. This in turn suggests that if the aim is to conserve the town’s character then priority should be given to conserving both natural features (e.g. mature and ecologically valuable indigenous vegetation) and older features (e.g. historic buildings), which will provide the best way of protecting the underlying framework upon which the town’s character is built, as perceived by its community. A similar configuration of features and underlying dimensions (Figs. 4.32 and 4.33) was also found in Apollo Bay. While the specific landscape features involved are obviously different, the underlying structure and spatial distribution of them, and associated vectors (ascribed meanings) represented in the Apollo Bay bi-plot, are very similar to Lorne. However, in Apollo Bay there were only five neighborhood groupings rather that six as was the

Fig. 4.31

Lorne Bi-plot: neighborhood group feature photographs

124

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Fig. 4.32 Apollo Bay Bi-plot

Fig. 4.33 Apollo Bay Bi-plot: neighborhood group feature photographs

126

case in Lorne were identified. The groupings associated with this stimulus configurations, as represented in the bi-plot, are summarized below. Group 1 is composed of a collection of large McMansion type houses and multi-unit residential developments, which had been rated in the photorating workshop as highly incompatible with the town’s character. These features are associated with vectors representing ‘bad design’, ‘design concerns’ ‘architecture’, ‘new development’, ‘lack of planning’, ‘no enforcement of regulations’ and ‘density’. Group 2 includes a range of commercial buildings, including a supermarket, an old hotel (that has since been replaced by a modern multi-unit apartment building), a tourist information center located at the foreshore area and various shops and cafes along the town’s main street (the Great Ocean Road). Collectively, these features were rated as moderately compatible with the town’s character and associated with vectors related to ‘new development’, ‘change’, ‘street scenes’, ‘community facilities’, ‘newness’ and ‘appropriateness’. Group 3 is represented by several historic buildings, including a few older houses, the historic post office, which is now a small boutique, a church and the old Mechanics Hall. These features were associated with vectors representative of ‘historic’, township’ and ‘community’, and were also rated as moderately-to-strongly compatible with the town’s character. Group 4 is comprised of features associated with the foreshore area, including a playground, parking areas for people accessing the beach and boat launch area, a scene of the Sunday markets, a foreshore open space area (where the market is held) and a variety of sculptures and pubic facilities associated with this area. Features in this group were associated with vectors representing ‘good’, ‘Apollo Bay’, ‘character’, ‘atmosphere’, ‘amenities’, ‘Main Street’ and ‘sculptures’. Collectively they were rated as moderately to slightly compatible with the town’s character.

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Group 5 is composed entirely of natural features and natural areas, including a waterfall, sand dunes and associated vegetation, views of the grasscovered hillsides and vegetation that form the backdrop to the town, a stand of very old fern trees (at a place locally known as Paradise) and a view of undeveloped coastline. Features in this group were associated with vectors representative of ‘naturalness’, ‘beauty’, ‘views’, ‘open space’, ‘activity’, the ‘ocean’, ‘river’, ‘trees’ and ‘vegetation’. They were also collectively rated as strongly compatible with the town’s character. Again, the same two underlying dimensions as identified in Lorne, a ‘natural to built’ dimension and an old to new dimension, were also found in Apollo Bay. The same types of features were also grouped together in both the Lorne and Apollo Bay stimulus configurations. In both towns identifiable feature groupings were found to include: • Large, new buildings, primarily multi-unit apartment buildings and large McMansion style houses • Community and tourist facilities, which in both towns were concentrated along the foreshore • Historic houses and other historic buildings • Foreshore features, open spaces and activities • Natural environments and associated features When the location of the various features, as represented in the bi-plots, were plotted on maps of the towns, their geographic distribution could be explored. Patterns that emerged showed that certain types of features tended to cluster in certain areas and geographic situations. In some instances, these are the same types of features that cluster together in perceptual space, as revealed in the biplots. For example, many of the natural features, which had been identified as strongly compatible with town character, clustered in certain geographic areas, such as in nature preserves, and these features were associated with distinct profiles of positive meanings. In other instances, features located in specific geographic situations, such as along hillsides,

4.4

Neighborhood Character

and which were rated as ‘out-of-character’, also tended to cluster together in the bi-plots. By studying relationships between the positioning of features in perceptual space and their location in geographic space, distinct areas of homogeneous character could be delineated. This spatial analysis suggested where there might also be likely conflicts, which would be expected where ‘in-character’ and ‘out-of-character’ features share the same geographic space. Exploration of these relationships raises some interesting questions: To what degree do features that group together in perceptual space, as determined by their location in the perceptual maps generated from the multi-photo sorting data, also cluster together in geographic space? And if they do, are they compatible with each other or not? By exploring these types of questions, it might be possible to determine identifiable ‘town character zones’ that could be mapped and linked with specific profiles of connotative meanings and assessments of the character compatibility of the features represented in specific geographic zones. Such geographic/ perceptual mapping could greatly assist in understanding and conserving place-character in the types of small towns explored in this research. 4.4

Neighborhood Character

The aim of this component of the research was to understand how residents conceptualize their individual neighborhood areas and the types of features that they feel define the character of these areas. As discussed in Chapter 2, after the home, the neighborhood is where people are most likely to feel ‘at home’ and most strongly identify with the distinctive features that differentiate it from other places. Because this analysis was more finely grained, as it focused on the scale of neighborhoods rather than the entire towns, it enabled identification of a more even distribution of features to be made across the towns, rather than just within particular areas of a town that may have had a concentration of ‘town character features’. By

127

examining all neighborhood areas within a town, and identifying salient features associated with the character of these areas, a larger and more diverse range of features was able to be identified, thereby avoiding the risk of identifying simply those features that are most iconic of a town’s character that are clustered in just a few areas of the town. As previously discussed, the projective-mapping questionnaires asked respondents (in the four towns where perceptions of neighborhood character were explored) to draw the perimeter of the area that they considered to be their neighborhood on the map, and to identify those features within it that they felt were most strongly associated with its character, as well as those features that they felt were most incompatible with that character. They were also asked to mark where their house was located within the area and to describe, in written format, what they felt were the most important aspects of their neighborhood area. From content analysis of both the neighborhood sketch maps and written descriptions, both features associated with the character of specific geographic neighborhood areas, and their spatial configurations, could be identified. Many of the features identified at the level of the neighborhood were specific to individual respondents or groups of respondents whose homes were located in the same general area, and happened to share similar views with respect to the contribution those features made to the area’s character. These features are those more likely to be ones that people would have formed attachments to, which, as was discussed in Chapter 2, would typically play an integral part in forming their sense of place. While exploring conceptions of neighborhood character, as revealed by analysis of the neighborhood sketch maps and written descriptions, a wealth of information was obtained that could be mined from a more theoretical perspective. However, the practical aim of collecting this information was to identify a smaller number of ‘neighborhood precincts’ shared

128

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

by people living in similar geographic areas. Typically, five or six such precincts were identified in each town. By dividing up towns into discrete neighborhood precincts in this way data from the various methods was able to be aggregated by precinct, which helped to ensure that the results reflected people living in all areas of the towns. Demonstrating the feasibility of this approach for defining neighborhood precincts was felt to be important because often such areas have to be delineated for planning purposes, which is typically done by the planners themselves. As discussed in Chapter 2, the way experts, such as town planners, define neighborhood areas may be very different to the way residents actually conceptualize their neighborhoods. For example, the ResCode planning provisions direct local governments in the state of Victoria to assess proposals for new residential developments in terms of how well the proposed development will ‘fit into’ existing ‘neighborhood character’. Before this can be done, discrete neighborhood areas need to first be delineated and their characters defined, which is typically done by local planners.

As previously mentioned, written descriptions reflective of what was ‘most important to the character’ of the respondents’ neighborhoods were content analyzed for three of the towns (Torquay, Aireys Inlet and Lorne). These data were grouped by the residential status of the respondents’ – i.e. if they were full-time or part-time residents. Keywords/ phrases associated with these descriptions were coded into a total of 33 content categories and two data matrixes, with content categories as variables and respondents as cases, were created for each town. These were then subjected to Principal Component Analysis in an effort to identify a smaller set of factors underlying the response patterns. The results suggested that similar components were salient to all three towns; however, there were some noticeable differences between full-time and part-time residents within each of the towns. Therefore, the data were aggregated across the three towns but separate composite matrices were created for full-time and part-time residents, which were also subjected to Principal Component Analysis.

To define neighborhood precincts, neighborhood sketch maps of similar geographic areas were first overlaid and shared boundary configurations were identified. While the spatial areas and boundary configurations depicted in the individual neighborhood sketch maps differed from person to person, even those living in close proximity to one another, there was often a substantial degree of agreement between maps that allowed the identification of shared neighborhood precincts. Some respondents drew smaller neighborhood areas that were confined to the immediate area around their home, while others included a part of their street or a few nearby streets and still others conceived of their neighborhoods as much broader geographic areas that included nearby features, such as a beach or other natural areas, or circulation routes that they felt were part of, or bordered, their neighborhoods. Some neighborhood areas (as depicted in the sketch maps) were irregular and organically shaped while others were more regular and rectilinear in form, examples of which have been illustrated in Fig. 3.14.

After examining several solutions, one with eight components was selected for both the full-time and part-time residents. These solutions explained a reasonable amount of the variance (43.5% for part-time and 47% for full-time residents) and were interpretable. There were more similarities than differences between the two groups; however, the most noticeable difference between part-time and full-time residents was with respect to the distribution of loadings on the different variables. For example, ‘beaches’ and ‘friends and neighbors’ both loaded on four components for the full-time residents, and on only one component for the part-time residents. These differences can be seen in the component-loading matrices as illustrated in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. While the ideal component labels might be slightly different for the two solutions, they can be roughly defined as: • Component 1: Nature and natural features • Component 2: Neighborhood boundaries

4.5

Conclusions

• Component 3: Home and nearby areas • Component 4: Community services, local shops and recreational amenities (e.g. Beaches) • Component 5: Community involvement (part-time residents), neighbors and friends and close vicinity to home (full-time residents) • Component 6: Frequented areas and trails • Component 7: Quiet streets and local parks • Component 8: Change over time and familiar nearby areas, friends and neighbors (part-time residents) lack of traffic and commercial areas (full-time residents) These results suggest that while there were some noticeable differences in terms of the importance that part-time and full-time residents place on the various aspects of their neighborhood areas, they nonetheless share the same types of features in defining these areas. The results suggest that full-time residents, as would be expected, generally have more complex conceptualizations of their neighborhoods than do part-time residents, which would no doubt be partially a result of greater familiarly with the local area. As might be expected, the ‘home’ itself did not play as significant role in the part-time residents’ concepts of neighborhood but the vicinity nearby the home did, which loaded on Component 3. For the permanent residents the vicinity nearby the home loaded on Component 5, along with ‘neighbors and friends’ and ‘familiarity with area’. For both groups ‘vicinity to the home’ loaded with ‘emotional responses’ and ‘permanent residents’. The similarity in the pattern of component loadings between these two groups is, however, obvious. What this suggests is that the same types of features are important to both groups and this should be given consideration in terms of conservation because while these groups may conceptualize, and value, these features for slightly different reasons, they nonetheless both consider them important to the character of their neighborhoods. For example, providing access to nature, such as beaches and forested areas, suggested by the results to be important to both groups, is something that

129

should be encouraged in neighborhood design. Other aspects, such as social relationships between neighbors and with the larger community, were also found to be important to neighborhood character, however, represented somewhat differently between the two groups Such social attributes would be much less amendable to planning control than would be the physical ones. 4.5

Conclusions

One of the important contributions of the studies presented in this chapter relates to the combination of data collection and analysis methods used in these studies. These methods can be applied in other places similarly facing change that is impacting on valued town character. This methodology proved to be highly effective in first identifying sets of town features/ places considered important by the residents in the study area towns in either supporting or detracting from the character of those towns and their neighborhoods. From the large array of features that were initially identified in each town, subsets of those that were most socially agreed upon in terms of their contribution to town-character, and those features perceived to detract from that character, were selected for use as stimuli in a series of photo-rating workshops. These workshops enabled the degree to which these features contributed to, or detracted from, the character of the various towns to be measured. These results made possible the identification of various typologies of town-character defining features. These collections of both natural and built features are those that collectively either contribute to, or detract from, the character of these various towns. The focus groups were also useful in interpreting the results of the photo-rating workshops by identifying physical attributes perceived to be associated with both ‘in-character’ and ‘out-of-character’ buildings. To understand the underlying structure in how the character of the towns was conceptualized, residents were interviewed using the multi-photo sorting method. Analysis of data derived from these interviews, using the unique combination of Multidimensional Scaling and Categorical Principal Component analyses,

130 Table 4.1

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character Component loading matrix – part-time residents (N = 351). Rotated component matrix, solution accounts for 43.5% of total variance Component 1

Vegetation and forest Important views Natural areas and features Trails The sea Similar properties Natural boundary Houses and housing stock Cultural features Built boundary (e.g. roads) No traffic Close vicinity to home Emotional responses Permanent residents Community services Activity area Shops, shopping and commercial area Access Beaches Out of town Whole town Community involvement Home Lived-in area

2

3

4

0.760 0.633 0.585 0.479 0.451

5

6

7

0.343

0.363 0.699 0.603 0.566 0.561 0.337 0.303

0.300

0.644 0.619 0.526 0.632 0.601 0.575 0.435 0.404 0.549 0.546 0.315

0.405

0.738

8

4.5

Conclusions

131

Table 4.1 (continued) Component 1

2

3

4

5

6

Frequented areas

7

8

0.707

Quietness Parks Streets and roads Familiarity with area Neighbors and friends Walked areas and places Changes over time

0.579 0.534 0.508 0.551 0.544 0.441 0.433

0.364

Table 4.2 Component loading matrix – full-time residents (N = 218). Rotated component matrix, solution accounts for 47% of total variance Component 1 Vegetation and forest

0.721

Important views Natural areas and Features The sea Boundary natural Boundary built (e.g. Roads) Cultural features Access Similar properties

0.717 0.675 0.667

2

3

0.810 0.808 0.532 0.373 0.729

4

5

6

7

8

132

Chapter 4: Community Perceptions of Place Character

Table 4.2 (continued) Component 1 Houses and housing stock Walked areas and places Community services Home Out of town Activity area Whole town Beaches Neighbors and friends Close vicinity to home Permanent residents Emotional responses Familiarity with area Park Frequented areas Trails Streets and roads Lived-in area Quietness Community involvement No traffic Shops, shopping and commercial area Changes over time

2

3

4

5

0.691 0.680 0.480 0.311

0.342 0.368

0.313

6

7

8

0.421 0.720 0.635 0.598 0.396 0.382

0.330 0.355 0.710 0.568 0.382 0.376 0.364 0.353

0.316

0.317

0.492 0.360 0.625 0.503 0.454 0.355 0.647 0.641 0.600

4.5

Conclusions

enabled relationships between features, and groups of similarly perceived features, and meanings that the respondents associated with these features, to be graphically displayed and explored. Groupings of similar types of features and the underlying dimensions, by which people discriminate between ‘in-character and out-of-character’ features, are revealed through examination of the bi-plots produced from these analyses. These results suggest that both natural environments and associated features, as well as historic elements, form the essential framework upon which the character of these towns are built and indicate where conservation efforts need to be directed.

133

Collectively these methods were shown to produce results with a very high degree of convergent validity; e.g. the frequency by which features were identified in the projective-mapping surveys closely mirrored the relative ratings they received in terms of how they were perceived with respect to their compatibility (or not) with town-character as determined from the photorating workshop results. The ability of the methodology to bring together such a wide range of complementary data sets also illustrates its usefulness in addressing various aspects of how people perceive and value town character and its transformation, suggesting its transferability for use in other places facing similar development pressures threatening valued town-character.

Chapter 5: Conserving Town Character This chapter reviews the efforts of several community groups, non-profit conservation organizations and government bodies that have been working to conserve town character within coastal areas in the United Kingdom, North America, Mexico and New Zealand. The places they are concerned with protecting range from small seaside towns to larger coastal regions. This has typically involved efforts to protect landscape features thought to be integral to expressions of local place character and include ‘character legislations’ designed to protect key features and manage environmental changes with the aim conserving place character in various coastal settings.

5.1

Introduction

The unique character that defines many coastal towns, and the increasing rate of change many of these places are experiencing, has alerted people to the need for preserving features in the landscape that are instrumental in conveying place character in these settings. Government ‘character legislations’ and community-lead land conservation initiatives have both been successful in conserving local features associated with town and landscape character in a range of environmental settings, from small seaside towns to large biogeographic areas. Some of these groups have developed procedures for assessing the likely impacts of proposed environmental changes on place-character, particularly in the context of smaller towns. While these efforts are often driven by a desire to maintain environmental quality for the residents of these places, in many instances, the motivation is also to sustain the local tourism industries where the character of these places itself forms the major tourist

attraction. Several examples of coastal towns and larger areas in the United Kingdom, North America, Mexico and the Pacific region, where attempts have been made to conserve the character of coastal towns and broader-scale coastal landscapes, are discussed in this chapter. These examples are in no way meant to be representative of the range of efforts being made in various places around the world, nor are they necessarily the most successful or innovative. The aim here is simply to illustrate a range of efforts being made by various communities and government bodies in attempting to conserve coastal place character that they feel is under threat. 5.2 5.2.1

Examples United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is particularly sophisticated with regard to approaches for conserving and assessing the character of its coastal towns. This is partially due to the historical continuity of many of these towns and recognition of the contribution that heritage features make to the character of these places. Maintaining the character of their coastal towns is, in many cases, also important in sustaining local tourism industries. The Federal Government’s Planning Policy Guidance 15 (PPG 15), Planning and the Historic Environment, introduced in 1994 and amended in 2004, mandates that local governments must protect areas of highly unique townscape and landscape character by designating them as Conservation Areas. In addition to this they must also conduct regular appraisals of the condition of the character of these areas. Below is a review of just a few such Conservation Areas, there are now over a thousand in England alone, focusing on how these areas were identified and how periodic appraisals of their character is being conducted. 5.2.1.1 The Leigh Old Town Conservation Area The Old Town of Leigh, located on the North Sea, east of London, and which is under the jurisdiction of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, is a good example of a coastal town that has tried to conserve its ‘…

136

Chapter 5: Conserving Town Character

unique character as a working marine village …’1 The town has been a marine-based settlement for the past thousand years, beginning around 1,000 A.D. as a small fishing hamlet that was then called ‘Legra’. During the Middle Ages it grew substantially to become an important stop on the trading route to other parts of the United Kingdom and the mainland. This has been instrumental in establishing the town’s unique character, which is conveyed mainly by a number of remaining historic and archaeological features clustered in specific areas of the town. A variety of land-uses, including boat building and repair, boat mooring, cockle processing, as well as more contemporary retail outlets, pubs and residential houses, all of which are concentrated along one of town’s main streets in what is know as Leigh Old Town, collectively support the town’s image as a working marine village making it worthy of protection within a Conservation Area. The local government first identified this area as worthy of conservation in 1977, but under current federal planning policy the Council (Southend-onSea Borough Council) was required to ‘… formulate policies in their local plans or local development frameworks to preserve the character of their conservation areas (Essex County Council 2008). They were also directed to periodically appraise the area’s character and assess any alterations in land-uses that will ‘materially affect the appearance or use of buildings or land …’ The Conservation Area designation does not prohibit change within the area and it is recognized that development pressures will have an impact on the character and appearance of these areas, therefore periodic assessment of their character is required. Local planning permission is, however, required for even very small changes, such as alteration of windows, rendering or painting over brickwork and other forms of cladding, re-roofing with different materials, installation of roof lights, building or alternating gates and fences, and other minor changes. Application for such changes are closely scrutinized and, more often than not, rejected,

based on the fact that they will not be compatible with the character of the area.

1

2

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council website: http://www.southend.gov.uk/content.asp? section=204&content=5507

Attributes deemed by the Council to be instrumental in conveying the character of this area, based on the Federal Government’s Planning Policy definition of what attributes are likely to convey the character of such areas, include2: · · · · · · · · · · ·

Historic layout of property boundaries and thoroughfares. Particular ‘mix’ of land-uses Characteristic materials Appropriate scaling Detailing of contemporary buildings Quality of advertising Shop fronts Street furniture Hard and soft landscape surfaces Vistas along streets and between buildings Extent to which traffic intrudes and limits pedestrian use of space between buildings

In addition to the conservation of historic elements, the form of contemporary buildings, and the spaces between them, is also seen as critical in terms of retaining and enhancing the character of the area. The process by which the ‘character compatibility’ of introduced features are assessed is not made clear but appears to be based on the judgment of Council planners. Public consultation, with respect to the periodic character appraisals of this and other Conservation Areas within the town has simply involved the Council asking residents and business owners to comment on draft

United Kingdom Government Planning Policy Guidance 15, Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG 15), Paragraph 4.2.

5.2

Examples

137 historic parts of a town or village, have an important industrial past or, for example, cover an historic park. Invariably such areas will have a concentration of historic buildings, many of which may be listed. However, it will be the quality and interest of the area which will be significant. This may include spaces around buildings, views and vistas, historic street patterns, gardens (public and private), trees and field systems.3

‘Conservation Area Character Appraisal’ documents without providing the community with opportunities to be involved in identifying features and associated attributes that they perceive to be important to the character of specific areas or in assessing proposed changes to these areas. 5.2.1.2 Cornwall Cornwall is a popular destination in the south of England that also relies on its distinctive character to attract tourists. The Council’s 2004 Structure Plan identified a number of Character Areas, along with design and environmental protection measures aimed at conserving the character of these areas. This document states that the ‘quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and built environment of Cornwall will be protected and enhanced’ and that this should be achieved by retaining elements of the local landscape, including natural and semi-natural habitats and historic features, both of which add to its distinctiveness. It goes on to state that such features need to relate to townscape character in positive ways through their siting and design, use of local materials and landscaping, and mixes of land-uses, including the size and densities of developed areas. This plan not only identifies a range of different character areas, but also environmental characteristics associated with these areas and the sensitivity of the character of these areas to changes. The Council had used this Structure Plan and the ‘character approach’ embodied in it in making land-use decisions within various Conservation Areas until the Federal Government’s Planning Policy (PPG15) made such Structure and Local Plans obsolete, which were then replaced by Local Development Documents and statutory Regional Spatial Strategies. The Council has thus far identified 145 Conservation Areas covering a total of 4,070 ha of land under its jurisdiction. The Council’s Enviroment and Planning website defines a Conservation Area as: … an area of special architectural or historic interest with a character or appearance that is desirable to preserve or enhance. There are no standard specifications for Conservation Areas; they may include the

They are now in the process of conducting Character Appraisals for each of these 145 Conservation Areas, which are aimed at identifying specific features and characteristics of these environments that are deemed important to the ‘special character and sense of place’ of these areas. These include such elements as: · · · · · · · ·

Historic buildings Topography and landscape setting Settlement form Important views and vistas Locally distinctive vernacular building styles Past and present activities and uses Streetscape and the public realm Green spaces and trees

These appraisals also attempt to identify features that may detract from the character of these areas. The specific criteria by which salient features are assessed in terms of their contribution to the character of the areas is never made explicit, and seems to be entirely based on expert judgment with no community input other than an opportunity to comment on draft appraisal reports.

3

Cornwall Council Planning website: http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2439

138

Chapter 5: Conserving Town Character

5.2.1.3 Southend on Sea For Southend on Sea, another coastal town under the South-on-Sea Borough Council jurisdiction, a more systematic approach for identifying areas of special character that are worthy of conservation was taken. The Council initially assessed the town’s properties street-by-street and rated their contribution to townscape character based on four assessment levels: · Positive – contributes to the area’s character · Positive (with enhancement) – potentially positive contribution but needs improvement or restoration · Neutral – neither harms nor contributes to the area’s character · Negative – harms the area’s character In total, 14 Conservation Areas have so far been identified as worthy of conservation and needing special protection due to their contribution to the area’s character, which is primarily due to their historical interest. The Council is currently in the process of appraising each of these areas to: · · · · ·

Identify the area’s special interest Review conservation area boundaries Assess the need for additional enhancement Review appropriate development controls Assist in preparation of Local Development Documents, which replace the current Borough Local Plans · Provide a basis for implementing policies and making informed development control decisions · Guide the siting of any future highway proposals in the area One of these 14 protected areas is the Shoebury Garrison Conservation Area, which was first recognized in 1981 due to the fact the Garrison and adjacent streets were considered to have ‘special architectural and historic interest and a unique character which needs to be preserved and enhanced’. Much of the area occupies former coastal marsh and low-lying land at the

mouth of the Thames River. The Garrison itself is visible from a number of open space areas, including beaches and from the sea. Remnants of massive ramparts, which are thought to have first protected an Iron-Age settlement, and which were later incorporated into the construction of the Garrison, are protected as an ancient monument within the Conservation Area. The Romans built a fortified settlement at the site, which was thought to have survived into the fourth century. Later, in the sixth century, Saxon invaders re-established a settlement there, which in turn was used by the Danes.4 The Garrison and surrounding areas were left derelict for many years until they were sold for development in 2000, at which time the Council accepted a master plan for phased development of the site. Information concerning the Garrison’s architecture and history was used in assessing the possible impact of the development on the character of the area. This resulted in redefining the boundaries of the area to include a wider area than the original area designation. Development of this area, and the conversion of former military buildings to new uses, prompted a review of the effectiveness of planning controls, the outcomes of which will need to be monitored over time. 5.2.1.4 Fareham Borough Council The Fareham Borough Council has designated a total of 13 Conservation Areas because of their ‘special character’ as conveyed primarily by the unique architectural and historic elements these areas possess, which are considered worthy of preservation, and in some cases needing enhancement. The Council website suggests that: The character of each area derives not just from the age and style of individual buildings but also from the way groups of buildings are arranged, the spaces between them, their historical significance in the development of an area and their use.

4

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council website: http://www.southend.gov.uk/content.asp? section=204&content=1570

5.2

Examples Many other factors such as: open spaces, landscaping, trees and important views all interact to form the overall character of an area. In order to make informed decisions about development that affects the character of a conservation area it is essential to have a clear understanding of what makes the area special.5

The Conservation Area Character Appraisals implemented by the Council are aimed at identifying key features in each area thought to be most important in defining its unique character, providing assistance in evaluating planning proposals that may affect the character or appearance of the area, and identifying the areas of possible needed improvements. As an example, the Town Quay Conservation Area Character Assessment describes the character of this particular area as conveyed through: The dominance of the viaduct in the street and existing views of it are important to the character of the conservation area and should be preserved. Views of Fareham Lake through the arches of the viaduct from the town form a visual link with the creek that should be preserved. Upper Quay has a strong waterside character, with a working wharf, a small marina and a marine related use at the Outboard Centre. Proposals have been made to convert or redevelop some of the currently unused buildings for residential use, which should help to revitalise the area (Fareham Borough Council 2005; p.10).

The suggestion that currently unused buildings, could, if used for residential use, revitalize the area is yet another example of the challenges of assessing new development in these areas in terms of predicting how compatible with the character of the area those proposed changes might be. How such assessments are made is never made explicit in their documentation, yet 5

Fareham Borough Council’s Conservation Area Character Assessment webpage at: https:// www.fareham.gov.uk/council/departments/planning/characterassessments.asp

139

this is a critical matter in terms of the success of how these developments will support or detract from the area’s character. In addition to considerations of protecting heritage features in places like the Upper Quay, the Council has responsibility for protection of the natural environment of the coastline, guidelines of which are given in the form of Strategic Plans. These plans must consider the need for providing protection of the coastal environment over the long term (100 years). No doubt, features associated with the town’s natural environment and views of natural areas are important to the character of certain areas yet these matters are addressed in separate planning documents, which would seem to compromise their usefulness in terms of conserving and assessing local character as an holistic phenomenon. Another example of Conservation Area Character Assessment, undertaken by this same Council, was that done for the Portchester (Castle Street) Conservation Area. This area had originally been designated a conservation area in 1969 as a way of protecting the ‘character and appearance of the village of Portchester including Portchester Castle’ (Fareham Borough Council 2008). Portchester village itself is situated between Fareham and Portsmouth on a coastal plain on a promontory at Portsmouth Harbor. The Roman Emperor Carausius built the castle in the third century A.D. and sited it on the headland of the promontory. Both the village and the castle are visible from the harbor, the coast and from a ridgeline to the north, making the castle a prominent landmark in the landscape. The character assessment report identifies the relationship between the castle, the surrounding landscape and associated buildings as particularly important in defining the area’s character because it provides ‘a powerful reminder of its past and preserving its integrity as a historic survival of great importance’. The castle incorporates parts of earlier Roman walls, which are still relatively well preserved but which have seen some modifications over the years. It was thought that King Edward the Elder acquired the castle in 804. It is known that the village of Portchester was important in medieval times and developed

140

Chapter 5: Conserving Town Character

beyond the castle, starting in the twelfth century. Over the centuries, the castle and surrounding landscape have experienced various changes and the Conservation Area designation was seen as a way of controlling these changes with the aim of protecting the area’s unique character. The Portchester (Castle Street) Conservation Area is comprised of four sub-areas all with different characters, with inter-relationships between these areas forming the overall character of the area. Architectural styles and details, plants, particularly trees, hedges and their arrangement, have all been identified as key features supporting the area’s character. The assessment report is careful, however, to note that the: … character assessment is not a detailed audit of historic buildings, most of which are statutorily listed, but a broader assessment of character and appearance. Where individual buildings or features make a particular contribution they are mentioned in the text, but that should not be taken to imply that other buildings and features are not also of importance … … appraisals are not intended to be comprehensive and the omission of any particular building, feature or space should not be taken to imply that it is of no interest.6

These statements seem to be made to deflect any criticism from individual property owners as to the contribution, or lack of, that individual properties make to the area’s character. 5.2.1.5 Island of Jersey The Island of Jersey has both a long history and a unique natural environment, both of which are seen to contribute to the island’s unique character. The Jersey Planning and Environment Committee have been responsible

6

The Council’s Conservation Area Character Assessment webpage at: https://www. fareham.gov.uk/pdf/planning/portchestrcaca.pdf (Accessed April 20, 2009)

for the appraisal of the island’s character, which has involved defining and assessing the distinctiveness of different areas within the island, formulating planning policies and development controls to protect the character of these areas, assessing the impact of development on that character and avoiding those situations in which existing development has negatively impacted on area character by ensuring that any new development respects or enhances the distinctive character of the island. They have also developed benchmarks against which change in the various identified Character Areas can be monitored. The concept of establishing benchmarks and a process for monitoring changes in character is a strategy that has not been widely employed, but could be very useful in assessing changes on place-character over time. Such benchmarks can help inform planners about impacts on the character of specific areas, and the reasons for those impacts, that may result from various types of changes and that they can aim to avoid in the feature. An excellent study undertaken by the State of Jersey Planning and Environment Committee, and the subsequent report (1999) entitled Jersey Countryside character appraisal including intertidal areas and offshore reefs, provides a comprehensive identification of a number of areas of special character across the entire island and procedures for their assessment. The study made an initial assessment of the ‘integrity of character’ of these areas, which, as stated in the report, focused on answering the question – ‘Does the area still have a very strong character derived from the interplay of a range of largely intact features, or has its general character been weakened or eroded in some way?’ Erosion of the integrity of character was seen as primarily a result of poorly sited or designed development and changes in land-use patterns, such as agricultural land-use, and the degree and nature of impacts on key features, which in turn were seen to impact on the quality of the island’s character. The assessment process was based on procedures associated with what has been termed the ‘Integrated Characterisation’ approach to character assessment, which considers both the natural landscape and the cultural history of an area as interrelated aspects of place character. Specifically, this approach recognizes that place character:

5.2

Examples … is the product not just of the visual landscape, but of interactions between physical features (topography, geology, climate etc.), the plants and animals which they support, and the cultural influences of human occupation and management of land over the centuries. In this way integrated characterisation gives equal weight to landscape character, nature conservation concerns and the historical and cultural evolution of an area, and sees these in terms of their interactions one with another to create discrete areas of unique character.7

Drawing on the notion of ‘Environmental Capital’, whereby the environment is conceived of as a collection of assets that provide benefits so long as the assets remain in tact, a total of 23 character areas were identified for initial study. These areas all possess common characteristics associated with their physical environment, biodiversity and cultural history. Six of these areas are marine based, along with two that are associated with offshore reefs and islands. Each of these areas was further broken down into discrete character sub-areas, with each possessing a distinctive identity. Threats to the character of these areas were defined, and planning policies and development controls appropriate to each area were formulated. 5.2.1.6 England’s Historic Seascapes Program England’s Historic Seascapes Program was commissioned by English Heritage to provide information useful for guiding planning decisionmaking with respect to conserving distinctive historic environments associated with England’s seascapes (English Heritage 2009). The program was initiated in response to growing development pressures that both

7

Definition of Integrated Characterisation Method (1.7) within the Jersey Countryside character appraisal report at: http://www.gov.je/PlanningEnvironment/IslandPlan2002/Background+ Papers/Countryside+Character+Appraisal/Method/Integrated+Characterisation.htm

141

coastal areas and the sea itself are under. This includes modification to coastlines from a range of human-induced changes, such as construction of hardscape elements as defences against the sea, expansion of ports, wind-farms and other developments, and associated impacts to the character of these environments. An Historic Seascape Characterisation methodology was used to undertake a range of seascape character analysis projects. Historic Landscape Characterization, from which the Seascape Characterisation methodology was based, has been defined as a method for describing physical, environmental and human-made changes applied to a landscape over time and that are visible in the contemporary landscape. It is a useful methodological tool for assessing changes to landscapes in terms of their appropriateness to historic character. Here it was used to map and assess culturally significant coastal and marine landscapes and seascapes, and the human impacts to these environments, in order to establish a knowledge base to inform decisions about suitability of changes in these environments. The Liverpool Bay Pilot Area was the initial project that employed this Historic Seascape Characterisation methodology. This was interesting in that it involved mapping and characterization of such subtle historic features as underwater Bronze Age human and animal footprints. While the Historic Seascape Characterisation projects extend the Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) program, which has already documented inland areas of cultural significance across most of England, the Historic Seascapes Program aims to document past human activity apparent in England’s coastal and marine environments. When these maps are combined with the HLC maps they will enable historic landscapes to be identified and assessed across the entire spectrum of landscapes from inland to coastal to the sea and integrated into a common framework. This framework can then be used in conjunction with data on the natural environmental characteristics of these areas in assessing place-character.

142

Chapter 5: Conserving Town Character

5.2.1.7 Landscape Character Network The Landscape Character Network (LCN) is a grassroots network of people interested in enhancing the distinctiveness of the character of local areas in the United Kingdom and promoting their sustainable development. Their website notes that the network is open to anyone with an interest in landscape character conservation.8 The group is funded by Natural England and is devoted to prompting Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), along with the principles outlined in the European Landscape Convention (ELC). This convention is a recent international agreement devoted solely to the protection, management and planning of landscapes across Europe. The Landscape Character Network puts out a comprehensive newsletter related to issues of landscape and townscape assessment and the conservation of areas of special character. It contains informative information with many interesting articles. For example, their Spring 2007 issue had a report describing an innovative approach to landscape character assessment entitled ‘Townscape, Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment of Havant Borough’ (Carman 2007). Havant Borough is located in the southeast corner of Hampshire, near Portsmouth. The article describes a character assessment approach used to assess landscapes in the Borough, including urban, urban fringe, rural and coastal areas, including a small island. The focus was on assessing attributes identified as key to the character of these areas that include (Carman 2007; p. 8): · · · · · ·

8

Physical landscape: landform, land cover and soils Biodiversity; key habitats and species Historic environments Archaeology Experiential landscape quality: tranquility, access Visibility

Landscape Character Network website: http://www.landscapecharacter.org.uk/

The assessment draws on information from the Historic Landscape Characterization process to classify historical aspects of the landscape, which include remnants of medieval land-uses. The key issue, and the point of the article, was that such assessments should be ‘seamless’ across landscapes, townscapes and seascapes, and that this is often not done very well as different approaches are typically taken in assessing these different types of environments. 5.2.1.8 Tranquility Mapping The group Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has developed a very interesting and useful method for mapping the tranquility of areas, which has now been implemented in many places across England including a number of coastal towns. Areas already mapped, and details about the methodology, are available from their website in the form of a series of reports entitled ‘Saving tranquil places: How to protect a vital asset’ that cover various places around England.9 The group asks the question: ‘Why have we allowed something (tranquility) so valued to be diminished?’ They suggest that it is partly because we do not know how to measure it. They go on to say that ‘… tranquility hasn’t been easy to define or pinpoint, because it arises from a combination of physical features and human experience. If you can’t measure something, it’s that much harder to make the arguments for protecting it.’ Because tranquility is associated with the character of many coastal landscapes this methodology is of value for assessing coastal town-character. As coastal towns grow, the tranquility associated with the character

9

http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/landscape/tranquillity/tranquillity-what-is-the-problem

5.2

Examples

of these places is often threatened by increasing urbanisation, traffic and a range of other factors. Places that provide a sense of tranquility are typically those that are not crowded or heavily built-up, but have retained some natural environments and are free from human caused noise and visual over-stimulation. While few coastal towns that are experiencing substantial growth possess areas with high levels of tranquility, many will still have areas that are moderately tranquil that need to be protected and enhanced as part of the overall conservation of a town’s character. The group’s website reports on a survey conducted with more than 1,000 respondents who were asked for their thoughts about tranquility – what enhances tranquility in a place, what detracts from it and how important do they consider tranquility to be. A total of 44 factors were identified from the survey data, which were later used to map the tranquility of a range of areas across England. The ten most frequently mentioned items, which people thought contributed most to tranquility, by frequency of mention, were: · · · · · · · · · ·

Seeing a natural landscape Hearing birdsongs A sense of peace and quiet Seeing natural-looking woodlands Seeing stars at night Seeing streams Seeing the sea Hearing natural sounds Hearing wildlife Hearing running water

The most frequently mentioned items associated with non-tranquil environments included: · Hearing constant noise from cars, lorries and/or motorbikes · Seeing lots of people

143

· · · · · · · ·

Seeing urban development Seeing overhead light pollution Hearing lots of people Seeing low flying aircraft Hearing low flying aircraft Seeing power lines Seeing towns and cities Seeing roads

The tranquility maps are composed of layers of information based on the factors identified above, taking into account the degree of importance of other key factors within a given area, such as topography. Layers are associated with both positive and negative impacts associated with the tranquility of a given place, which include, ranging from most positive to most negative: · · · · · · · · ·

A natural landscape, including woodlands Rivers, streams, lakes and the sea Birds and other wildlife Wide open spaces Cars, motorbikes, trains and aircraft – and roads and railways Light pollution Towns, cities and villages Large numbers of people Pylons, power lines, masts and wind turbines

In developing the maps, characteristics of each locality, such as the area’s proximity to roads and buildings, noise and crowding levels, proximity to water, topography and if the place provides views to natural environments or open countryside are plotted. Using GIS technology, the different layers are combined to allow the maps to be used to illustrate how likely one might experience, and to what degree, tranquility in any given spot within a particular study area.

144

5.2.2

Chapter 5: Conserving Town Character

North America and Mexico

5.2.2.1 Maine Coast Heritage Trust Maine Coast Heritage Trust (MCHT) is a land conservation group devoted to protecting Maine’s landscapes and townscapes. Their slogan is ‘Protecting the character of Maine for future generations’. Since it was started in 1970 it has been responsible for permanently protecting more than 121,000 acres of land in the state, including more than 260 coastal islands. The Trust works together with landowners, other land trusts and community groups to conserve coastal lands and islands of high scenic beauty, ecological diversity, and as examples of working landscapes. It has been particularly active in conserving land in six towns located between the Tatnic Hills of Wells and Gerrish Island in Kittery Point and their surrounds. They focus primarily on coastal areas due to the recognition of the threat that the state’s seaside towns face as a result of the explosion of second-home construction along its coastline. Their website states that: As people continue to stream into southern Maine, local residents who farm, fish or harvest trees are finding that their land is worth much more as development property than as a working landscape. Simply put, if a family needs to sell, the highest bidder is probably a developer. The resulting new homes add costs to the municipal budget and detract from our sense of place.10

The Trust has been very successful in raising public and private funds to acquire land in places that are under pressure from development and associated lost of landscape and town character. For example, in 2006 they raised more than $100 million to purchase land on Maine’s coast, as part of its ‘Campaign for the Coast’. This was the largest amount of funds raised for land conservation from a single campaign in the state’s history.11 10 11

MCHT website: http://www.mcht.org/index.shtml (Accessed April 20, 2009) The Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire: http://www.csrwire.com/News/6091.html

5.2.2.2 Scarborough, Maine Scarborough, Maine is a typical example of a community experiencing rapid growth, and like many coastal towns located near a major metropolitan area, close enough for commuting, in this case to Boston, the town is seeing its distinctive rural character transformed into something that is more suburban in nature. The nearby city of Portland itself is large enough to supply jobs for the town’s growing population. As a result of the boom in development to accommodate the growing population many people in the local community have complained that the town is starting to look and feel more like suburbia, rather than a ruralseaside settlement. The sheer magnitude of this development makes conservation of the town’s character difficult and the local government is under considerable pressure to conserve remaining features of its landscape considered to be important in conveying the town’s character. No formal study of what the community considers important in terms of local character seems to have been undertaken, however, there has been debate about the best ways to preserve open space, which is seen as one of the most effective measures for conserving local character. This has focused on how to balance the economic incentives for landowners to sell their land for development with a desire to conserve open space integral to the town’s character. The local government recognizes the need to redirect future growth away from certain areas, such as places that possess important ecological features and open space, both of which are seen as vital to retaining the town’s remaining rural character. While a large marsh area, which makes up a large part of the town’s total open space, is protected (under the Scarborough’s Resource Protection Zone), land outside this area has already been developed, further eroding the town’s rural character. A variety of options for conserving the town’s character have been suggested, including conservation of remaining rural roads, many of which have already been lost to suburban development, clustering of housing and conversely, increasing minimum lot sizes, and directing

5.2

Examples

infrastructure away from areas associated with the town’s remaining rural landscapes.12 There was also a suggestion that a comprehensive survey of the town’s historic features should be undertaken to identify properties associated with the town’s character that might be eligible for nomination to the National Register. Scarborough is typical of many coastal settlements struggling with how to retain their rural, seasidecharacter in the face of rapid development built to accommodate people who are, ironically, principally attracted to these towns because they still retain some of this rural seaside-character. 5.2.2.3 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition The Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition is a grassroots, non-profit organization: … dedicated to preserving the natural communities, ecosystems and landscapes of the Oregon coast while conserving the public’s access. Oregon Shores pursues these ends through education, advocacy, and engaging citizens to keep watch over and defend the Oregon coast.13

Much of the Oregon coastline has remained in a natural state and is highly scenic. However, the very fact that it is so pristine and beautiful has attracted significant numbers of visitors and people wanting to migrate to the state, particularly from more developed places such as California. With this influx of people there has been an increase in development, witnessed particularly along the state’s coastline. Oregon passed a ‘Beach Bill’ that guarantees public access to the shoreline, and it also has a substantial network of state parks bordering the coast. But these and other public open-space areas are increasingly being encroached upon by 12

Scarborough Crossroads, a local volunteer organization: http://www.scarboroughcrossroads.org/slct/referen/a02/rp040004.html 13 Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition website: http://oregonshores.org/ (Accessed April 20, 2009)

145

residential and commercial development that is threatening the coastline’s distinctive landscape character. This group has been very successful in getting ordinary citizens involved with issues to do with coastal land conservation. For example, one of their initiatives, CoastWatch, is a citizen monitoring program that engages residents in taking reasonability for parts of the coastline near where they live and alerting the rest of the network to any impending threats that they may encounter. In this program, each volunteer adopts a mile-long segment of the coastline, which they monitor for natural and human-induced changes. In essence, they act collectively as an early warning system to notify the rest of the group to threats they might observe along their stretch of the coast. In this way, hundreds of miles of the state’s coastline are under constant surveillance by concerned citizens. If they see a potential threat they notify the Coalition, who then contacts other groups within the Coalition (e.g. its Coastal Law Project), local governments, regulatory agencies and other relevant bodies. The idea for the CoastWatch program was hatched by an Oregon Shores board member, Phillip Johnson, in 1993 in response to requests from people engaged in battles to stop inappropriate shoreline development, battles they were often losing due to not receiving advance notice of pending threats. The problem was that the group was only being made aware of these threats once the danger was imminent and often too late to mount a defence. Johnson, in discussing how he came up with the idea, has said that, ‘To get advance warning of everything that might threaten the coast, you would really have to have someone standing there, at every mile. Then the thought sprang into my head: What if we actually did have someone watching over every mile?’ He based the idea on similar warning systems used in tenth century Europe whereby outposts were sited on coastal headlands and manned with guards who would watch for approaching Viking ships and then spread the alarm using bonfires when ships were spotted. He asked himself: ‘Could the Oregon Shores create the same kind of network?’

146

He remains the director of the program and hopes it is a tradition that will endure: ‘We hope that people will bond with their mile, and make a point of handing it to someone else, and that it will be passed down through.’14 Another one of the Coalition’s initiatives is the Coastal Law Project, which helps members and local citizens to fight, through the land use planning process and legal system, inappropriate development projects that threaten coastal landscape character. Their Land Use Program focuses on specific land-use problems both in terms of case-by-case battles in opposing proposed developments as well as longer-term issues to do with strategic land-use planning. 5.2.2.4 Land Trust Alliance The Land Trust Alliance has a range of national and regional programs concerned with both historic conservation and natural environmental protection along coastlines.15 Their Coastal Conservation Networking program is one such program, which is a web-based resource supported by a coalition of conservation groups around the country, including the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The network helps organizations that are working on coastal conservation issues by providing mutual support through collectively sharing resources and information. The Maui Coastal Land Trust is an example of one group associated with the Land Trust Alliance that has been very successful in conserving land and associated natural and cultural features on the Hawaiian island of Maui. This group is a non-political, non-profit organization that works with private landowners, neighborhoods, community groups and government

Chapter 5: Conserving Town Character

agencies to protect, in perpetuity, significant environmental and cultural resources on the island. Their stated mission is ‘to preserve and protect the coastal lands of Maui Nui’. They do this by focusing on conserving specific sites considered valuable for any number of reasons, such as providing shoreline access and recreation, as habitat for endangered species, for agriculture and for the conservation of archeological and other culturally significant features. The Refuge land acquisition is a good example of just one of this group’s many successful projects.16 This involved the purchase of 277 acres of existing dairy farmland, located between Waiheè Park and Waihe’e Point, which was slated for development as a golf resort. The site has significant archaeological value and provides habitat for a range of indigenous plants and animals. Another one of their projects involved the acquisition of the 250 acre Waiheè Coastal Dunes and Wetlands Refuge site. This site has spring-fed wetland areas, dune ecosystems, over 7,000 feet of shoreline and riparian habitat that is home to a range of indigenous flora and fauna species, including six endangered species – the Hawaiian Stilt and Cootalong with several endangered plant and insect species. The site is also rich in archaeological remains, including an ancient fishing village and burial sites. The later is one of the most significant sites of its kind remaining on the island. The Waiheè Reef, which is one of the longest and widest reefs on the island, and which parallels the shoreline along one side of the property, was an important fishing spot used by ancient Hawaiians. There are also plans to restore a fishpond, taro plots and other areas that had been used for agriculture and other purposes in the past. 5.2.2.5 Hawai’i Island Land Trust The Hawai’i Island Land Trust (HILT) is another Hawaiian based group involved in the protection of native habitat, open space, agricultural land,

14

Philip Johnson cited in an article by Niki Price in Oregon Coast Today available on the CoastWatch website: http://oregonshores.org/narrative.php5?nid=175 15 Land Trust Alliance website: (http://www.lta.org/yourregion/s_se_archives.htm#071006)

16

Maui Coastal Land Trust website: http://www.mauicoastallandtrust.org/waihee.php

5.2

Examples

and culturally and historically significant sites. The group not only focuses on coastal land but also wetland, pasture, mountain and forestlands. Their motto is: ‘Care for the land, cherish the spirit and the culture of the land and its people’ (Malama Ka Aina, Pulama Na Mea Oiwi). As they explain on their website: ‘it is the Hawaiian way to cherish and protect the ‘aina, the land. The land bridges the sky and the seas with a connection that feeds us and nourishes our souls. As we move into the future, the respect and honor we hold for the ‘aina guides us and our actions as a land trust.17 As Replogle, a local lifetime resident of the island has said: The ancient Hawaiians were some of the first great conservationists. They recognized the importance of the natural world to their way of life and that the mountains, land, and ocean are all connected, and man needs access to them to be healthy and survive. For 2,000 years native Hawaiians have retreated to the coast for some of their most important cultural traditions, such as to the beaches for luaus and the ocean for fishing and canoeing.18

The group’s focus is on the Ka’u district of the big island of Hawaii, an area containing a range of habitat types, from rainforests, lava deserts, grasslands to rocky coastlines. The Kau’s coastline is the longest undeveloped stretch of coastline in the Hawaiian Islands, stretching 80 miles from South Kona to Volcanoes National Park. The group has identified two areas that they consider priorities for conservation, the black sand beach at Punalu’u, which is the nesting grounds for the endangered green sea turtle, and Honu’apo Bay and its associated tidal wetlands. The Hawaiian monk seal can sometimes be found at the Honu’apo Bay site, which is Hawaii’s most endangered animal with an estimated population of only 1,400.

147

Again, in the words of Roplogle: … what you see here you don’t see in the rest of Hawaii or the rest of the world. When I was growing up, Honu’apo Bay and its surrounding tidal wetlands were part of a sugar plantation. Once the plantation closed and the land was put up for sale – 225 shoreline acres for $3.4 million – it was dangerously close to becoming developed like so many other coastal areas of the Big Island.19

The goal was to conserve the 225-acre site at Honu’apo Bay in response to a community group’s pleas (Ka Ohana O Honu’apo). This group is made up of people from two nearby towns (Na’alehu and Pahala) who learned that the site was slated for rezoning, which would allow it to be developed for residential use. There are also plans to build a golf resort on the site. Together with the The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Land, the Trust was able to secure county, state and federal funds, along with private donations from nearby landowners, to purchase the land. The land has now been turned over to the State of Hawaii and will eventually be turned over to the County of Hawaii with plans to re-establish the natural habitat of the estuary, which had been damaged by the plantation, to create a fish nursery and hopefully restore habitat for the endangered Hawaiian Stilt bird (‘ai’o) for breeding purposes. Working with the County of Hawaii’s Parks and Recreation Department, they hope to one day create the largest county park in the state of Hawaii for the purpose of protecting coastal open space. 5.2.2.6 Canada’s Atlantic Coastal Action Program The Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) was initiated by Environment Canada in 1991 with the aim of involving local communities in conserving and restoring coastal environments, and addressing challenges to

17

Hawaii Island Land Trust website: http://www.hawaiilandtrust.org/ (Accessed April 20, 2009) Land Trust Alliance West Region: http://www.landtrustalliance.org/community/ Regions/west/success-stories/coastline-jewel (Accessed April 20, 2009) 18

19

Hawaii Land Trust: http://www.hawaiilandtrust.org/hawaii-land-trust-projects.html (Accessed April 20, 2009)

148

these landscapes posed by development. The stated aim of this group is to restore and sustain coastal areas through engaging local communities by empowering them to take a holistic approach toward environmental protection. Currently there are 16 independent community based groups that are part of the program, spread across Canada’s Atlantic coast, including parts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador and Prince Edward Island. The groups operate independently, but are linked to the ACAP in order to collectively have a stronger voice and be able to share information. The program mainly focuses on four issues: biodiversity conservation, pollution prevention, environmental reporting, and ‘bottom-up’ citizen involvement in environmental conservation and restoration. While the program primarily addresses environmental management issues, it has potential to also address the conservation of heritage and cultural sites.20 One of their recent projects, the ‘Geocaching’ project, is an innovative way of bringing people in contact with ecologically healthy landscapes, as well as those that have been impacted and thereby raise their awareness of coastal landscapes and problems facing these landscapes. Geocaching is a hi-tech recreational activity where participants use satellite-guided navigation information, conveyed through handheld GPS units, to find ‘caches’, in the landscape. They get clues from the Internet to help them find these hidden ‘caches’, which have been planted in various environmental settings. There is a ‘leave no trace’ policy, whereby participants must not disturb the sites in any way during the activity. The idea is to raise the participants’ awareness of the value of these environments and environmental problems through exposure to various coastal landscapes, which in turn will hopefully get them involved in environmental conservation and rehabilitation activities within the group.

20

Atlantic Coastal Action Program website: http://atlantic-web1.ns.ec.gc.ca/community/ acap/default.asp?lang=En&n=085FF7FC-1

Chapter 5: Conserving Town Character

5.2.2.7 Xcalak, Mexico Xcalak is a small settlement located in the southern coast of the state of Quintana Roo, Mexico. A community committee was set up with the aim of creating a marine park, the National Coral Reef Park at Xcalak, to preserve its natural resources and promote sustainable use of the area for the long-term economic benefit of the community, while also conserving biodiversity. The community involved researchers from the University of Rhode Island and a local NGO. This is a good example of a community-based project in a developing country where tourism and associated development was threatening the area’s coastal and marine environment. Both fishing and tourism are important to the local economy. However, at least in the short term, tourism is likely to become the most important industry due to government plans for the continued development of the Costa Maya tourism corridor; a coastal strip that possesses incredible natural beauty and archaeological value. Tourists have, in the past, been coming to the area primarily to engage in both underwater activities, such as diving, and terrestrial nature-based activities such as bird watching. Community concerns about the current and potential impact of tourism on the area’s landscape character prompted the formation of the group, whose members felt there was a need for strong environmental protection and environmentally-responsible tourism. They are particularly focused on establishing a National Park and in strengthening community involvement in providing tourism services. They are also interested in helping to design eco-tourism trip routes, both by land and water, and working with potential tourism developers to achieve low impact development with the aim of protecting the natural environmental attractions of the Xcalak Peninsula. Their aim was to integrate their actions with those of other initiatives set out in the environmental land-use plan developed for the entire Costa Maya Corridor, such as the Manatee Sanctuary in Chetumal Bay, urban design plans for Xcalak settlement itself, and the Bacalar Chico Marine Reserve in Belize (Lopez et al. 1998).

5.3

5.2.3

Summary

New Zealand

5.2.3.1 Environment Waikato of New Zealand’s North Island Environment Waikato is a regional council that manages both inland and coastal landscapes and seascapes in the central part of the north island of New Zealand, both on the east coast, including Coromandel Peninsula and the Firth of Thames, and on the west coast from just north of Port Waikato heads to the mouth of the Mokau River. The area over which the Council has jurisdiction includes over 1,000 km of the island’s coastal and estuarine shoreline. This area contains a range of sites of outstanding natural beauty and high cultural and ecological value. The group has been very successful in incorporating input from the community into their coastal planning initiatives, including the views of its indigenous Maori residents. A key concern has been protecting the ‘natural character’ of the coastal areas and the spiritual and cultural significance that the Maori people associate with these landscapes. These values are threatened by human activities, including land clearance, coastal development and building of coastal structures, introduction of non-indigenous plant and animals, sand mining, recreational activities and farming, all of which are impacting on the natural character of the coastlines. ‘Natural character’, which is associated with both coastal landscapes and seascapes of the region, is conveyed by the scenic, recreational and historical values of an area. Their Regional Coastal Plan defines ‘natural character’ as: The natural qualities of the coastal environment of New Zealand. Such qualities may include natural elements of ecological, physical, spiritual, cultural or aesthetic value. Both modified and managed environs have a degree of natural character by virtue of the presence of natural elements.21

21

Environment Waikato Regional Council: http://www.ew.govt.nz/Policy-and-plans/RegionalCoastal-Plan/Regional-Coastal-Plan/APPENDIX-VI-Glossary/

149

This definition also distinguishes between two levels of ‘natural character’, with the highest value being associated with ‘pristine’ environments – undisturbed landforms, places with native and endemic fauna and flora – while the second level is broader in interpretation and includes landscapes that are primarily natural but may not be as pristine, for example that may have evidence of exotic plants, farmlands or introduced animals. However, according to this definition, the introduction of any built feature equates to a certain degree of degradation of natural character. Various court cases in New Zealand have supported the later definition by ruling that the word ‘natural’ does not necessarily have to equate with the word ‘pristine’ in defining the notion of ‘natural character’. 5.3

Summary

This chapter presented examples of various groups in the United Kingdom, North America, Mexico and New Zealand who are involved in conserving town and landscape character in coastal towns and areas in various ways. The United Kingdom’s Planning Policy Guidance 15 (PPG 15), Planning and the Historic Environment, and the directives it contains with respect to identification and management of Conservation Areas, has been a major impetus for the consideration of the value of place character and an impetus for development of useful methods for the assessment of character as it is manifest in a variety of setting types, including coastal towns. Most of these Conservation Areas are considered worthy of protection because they possess significant historic and archaeological features that define their distinctive character. In the process of appraising the character of these Conservation Areas, something that is required to occur periodically under the policy, the notion of place character has been clarified and methods for its assessment developed, primarily through the efforts of local councils. The existence of groups such as the Landscape Character Network in the United Kingdom are testimony of the importance that people are starting

150

to place on landscape and townscape character, and the perceived threat these qualities are under in many places. The development of new methodologies, for example Tranquility Mapping, useful for assessing attributes frequently associated with desirable place-character in coastal areas, is evidence of this concern for the protection of the character of small towns and of the difficulties involved in appraising place character in these settings, due to its inherently intangible nature. In United States and Canada, features of the natural environment are more often identified as instrumental in defining the character of their coastal towns and landscapes, and the need for protection from inappropriate environmental changes. Places such as Maine and Oregon are both experiencing growth due to what in Australia has been termed the sea change phenomenon – people moving to semi-rural coastal towns to escape the pressures associated with urban environments. In many of these places, the efforts of grassroots conservation groups, such as the Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, are directed at identifying threats to landscapes,

Chapter 5: Conserving Town Character

such as inappropriate development proposals, in time so that legal challenges can be mounted. In other places, such as in Scarborough, Maine, the aim is to stop further erosion of the town’s rural character through controlling new development so that significant features associated with local place-character can be preserved to retain some semblance of the town’s rural seaside character. Concern for the protection of the character of coastal areas is also found in developing countries, such as the example of the community group in Xcalak, Mexico, that has been working to conserve significant ecological features of the local coastal and marine environment, and to influence the form of future tourism development in the area so that it will be in keeping with their conceptions of the area’s character. In Hawaii and New Zealand there is also strong emphasis placed on the views of the indigenous residents of the land, with respect to land conservation, in terms of the natural environmental, cultural and archaeological features along their coastlines associated with valued landscape character.

Chapter 6: Facing Future Challenges This chapter discusses approaches for monitoring perceptual responses to change and associated impacts on town character using the basic methodology developed for the research presented in Chapters 3 and 4. It also discusses future challenges that coastal towns will face, particularly with respect to climate change, and the need for these places to begin to adapt to these changes in ways that will be sensitive to the valued character that many of these special places possess.

6.1 Assessing and Managing Responses to Change Many coastal towns are in a state of transition principally due to the pressures from rapid growth in their populations and as a consequence of poorly planned development associated with catering to the needs of their growing populations and to tourists, such as was seen in the examples presented in the last chapter. Many of the negative impacts resulting from these changes are avoidable, or at least the associated impacts can be minimized. For example, damage that is done to ecosystems that can often occur during the construction of new housing to accommodate growing populations can to a large extend be avoided thought good environmental planning and design. Other more subtle changes, such as the incremental erosion of valued place character that many of these places are witnessing can also be minimized. But because the responsible authorities often do not have a clear understanding of what it is they need to control and how this should be done this has proven difficult. As illustrated in the last chapter, many communities are tackling this problem with a combination of conservation measures and legislation in the form of statutory controls

on development and citizen involvement in conservation efforts. But these efforts rely first on knowing what features and attributes of the landscape should be conserved before they can be protected. This also means knowing how to predict responses to proposed environmental changes with respect to their compatibility with the character of the place in which the change is proposed, something that generally has not been done very well. This is often because current approaches for assessing place-character seldom take proper account of community perceptions and environmental values and try to balance these with other planning considerations. The research methods and studies presented in Chapters 3 and 4 represent one approach for involving the user public in identifying character-defining features and assessing the suitability of changes to town character. In those studies, the focus was on assessing changes that have already occurred. However, the basic methodology used in those studies could be adapted in a variety of different ways and implemented to better understand responses to environmental changes. For example, it could be used to monitor changes over time and the perceived impacts that changes in the landscape make on a town’s character. Such an approach would, over time, allow a better understanding of how different types of changes might impact on perceived place character in different environmental setting types. The studies presented in Chapter 3 and 4 were concerned with assessing community perceptions of place character at the scale of both the town and neighborhood. This methodology could, however, also be used to involve communities in identifying and assessing smaller, more spatially-defined areas within towns, or what could be called ‘character zones’. This would allow proposed changes, such as proposed buildings, within such zones to be assessed at a more finely grained scale than an entire town or neighborhood area. It could even be adapted to test the effectiveness of planning regulations aimed at protecting valued place-character a priori to their embodiment in legally-binding planning regulations. The following discussion relates to how these adaptations to the basic methodology could be implemented.

152

6.1.1

Chapter 6: Facing Future Challenges

Identification and assessment of town character zones

The research that was reported in the previous chapters found that similar types of character-defining features often cluster together in the same geographic areas within towns. These areas often possess their own distinctive character. For example, a town may have a collection of historic buildings concentrated within a particular vicinity, say along one street, and these features will dominate that street’s character. In the context of the towns along the Great Ocean Road, the immediate shoreline was often associated with distinctive natural features – rock formations, dunes, beaches and other natural elements – that were found to be instrumental in conveying the character of these areas. These are both instances of discrete character zones. The character of any town will be composed of a mosaic of such smaller character zones, which collectively will express a town’s overall character. Degradation or loss of key character-defining features in any one of these zones will not only impact on the character of that zone, but also on that of the entire town. Therefore, it is important that such character zones be identified and assessed in terms of their contribution to a town’s overall character. In some instances these zones will coincide with neighborhood areas and will be identified as part of neighborhood character assessments. However, often they will occur outside identifiable neighborhood boundaries in uninhibited or sparsely inhabited areas, and not be examined as closely. The character of such smaller scaled character zones will be conveyed through both visually dominant character-defining features as well as contextual elements, which are likely to be less conspicuous. Analysis of such zones would typically involve a two-step process, which would first focus on identifying and delineating the spatial characteristics of the zone within the context of the entire town, and then identifying key features within the area. This would include both visually-prominent elements and contextually related ‘background’ features. These features can then be photographically sampled at higher densities than one would do for an entire town or an individual neighborhood area. It is also useful to photographically

sample such areas randomly. One method for doing this utilizes a systematic, unaligned, random sampling procedure that was previously used by the author for monitoring changes in perceived town character over time (Green 1985a,b). The photographs are then used as stimuli to represent the zone’s landscape conditions to samples of the user public for them to assess in terms of local character as displayed by depicted features. If the ratings are aggregated the perceived character of the zone itself could be assessed and compared to other zones in terms of its contribution to overall town character. By knowing the location, characteristics and the degree to which these zones contribute to overall town character, proposed environmental changes within these zones can be more precisely assessed in terms of their compatibly with the character of the zone. Key features associated with these zones can also be analyzed to isolate their distinctive characteristics, such as colors, materials, forms, scale relationships with other features, and other attributes of both built and natural features, such as vegetation. This type of information could then be used to develop perceptually-based design performance standards and guidelines for individual zones that can be used to both inform the design of new features (for example buildings) within zones, and also as criteria by which to assess future proposed changes against. 6.1.2

Monitoring town character over time

Since both environments and people change over time, perceptions of the character of local environments – towns, neighborhoods and individual character zones – should also ideally be monitored so that assessments will remain valid. If photographs of the same locations are taken periodically changes occurring at the photographed sites can be documented. Local residents can then be involved in assessing the contribution that the depicted features/places make to the character of the area in which the photographs were taken. By comparing perceptual responses to changes before and after changes are made, impacts on perceived town character can be determined. Once these impacts are identified, appropriate planning actions can be taken to avoid similar changes in the future and to

6.1 Assessing and Managing Responses to Change

address negative ones that have already occurred. Appropriate actions might include the selective enhancement, modification, preservation or removal of environmental elements, with the aim of maintaining desirable expressions of local character. This monitoring approach can be accomplished by taking and collecting sets of ‘re-photographs’ at various monitoring sites. Re-photographs are photographs taken at the exact same locations and from the same vantage points at designated time intervals, for example, every year. These can be used to assess changes in the character of places where the re-photographs were taken by having samples of people in a community assess the changes in terms of perceived compatibility with local character. This can provide a record of both actual changes and community responses to these changes. While this type of information would be extremely valuable for informing planning decision-making, the findings from such longitudinal research would also be of tremendous interest from a more theoretical perspective as the record of changes and responses to these changes would enable an understanding of processes related to changes in people’s sense of place over time. If people with various demographic and environmental history characteristics are used as respondents to assess the stimuli elements (sets of re-photographs), individual and sub-group differences with respect to how people perceive change in place-character can be explored. Methodologically, this longitudinal approach for assessing town character would entail first establishing a baseline set of photographs to document the town’s actual environmental conditions, ideally at different scales, from the entire town, individual neighborhoods down to smaller character zones, and photographically sampling these areas at corresponding densities, from courser to more finely grained. Periodically ‘re-photographs’ from the same exact vantage point locations, or ‘monitoring stations’, are taken. This form of long-term, time-lapse photography has been employed before to monitor both actual changes and perceived changes in environments. For example, the author used it to monitor changes after a major bushfire,

153

the 1983 Ash Wednesday Bushfires in Australia, to track changes over time in the perceived character of towns damaged by the fires as they recovered (Green et al. 1985b). Over time, the collection of photographs from each monitoring station can provide a unique record of the changes occurring in those places. Photographs from the same places at different times can also be used as stimuli in photo-rating workshops, or for other data collection methods (such as the photo Q-sort method) to measure changes in peoples’ perceptions with respect to the contribution that the depicted features/ places make to the character of specific places at different times. 6.1.3 Assessing the impact of proposed changes on place character Another application of the basic methodological approach is in assessing the perceived impact of proposed development, or other changes to an environment, with respect to people’s perceptions of the compatibility of the change with town-character. This can be done by photographically simulating (or through the use of computer manipulated photographic images) the proposed change, for example a new commercial development. Public responses are then collected in regard to the compatibility of the change in comparison to existing conditions. This can be done within the context of a community photo-rating workshop or by using some other suitable perceptual data collection method. Computer generated environmental simulation techniques, rather than photographic approaches, can be employed for this purpose but the simulations must be believable to the respondents so that they will be convinced of the potential reality of the proposed change. If not, the results will be unreliable. This type of assessment would have to concern itself first with identification and photographic documentation of the character zone, as discussed above, in which the proposed change was to occur. Photo-simulation techniques are then used to simulate the proposed change by photographically inserting it, say a proposed building, into the landscape settings in which it will be sited. The simulated change, within the context of the character zone in which it will occur, can then be assessed against existing

154

conditions. In this way various options, for example different architectural designs, can be evaluated with respect to the perceived suitability of the change to the character of the place and the most suitable change option (building design), providing any of them are considered to be suitable, can be selected for implementation. The value of this approach is that it can be used to assess the potential impact of proposed changes, e.g. a new building, a priori its to implementation. Public involvement in assessing the character compatibility of such proposed environmental changes will allow impacts of changes on place character to be more accurately predicted. Demonstration of community involvement in the decision-making process in this way should also help to gain public approval of implemented changes. 6.1.4 Assessing the effectiveness of planning controls Yet another application of the general methodological approach involves local residents in assessing the effectiveness of planning control regimes aimed at conserving and/or establishing preferred town or neighborhood character before they are encoded into legally enforceable planning regulations. This involves local residents in assessing photo-simulations of hypothetical developments that would be allowable under various planning control regimes in terms of their compatibility with town character. The idea is to assess the effectiveness of the controls themselves not necessarily any particular set of buildings. Data collected from these assessments is then statistically treated (using Multiple Regression and other forms of multivariate analysis) to link perceptual responses to different combinations of physical attributes as they are manifested in the simulated development scenarios. Again, these are development scenarios that would be allowable under the planning control regime being tested. Such knowledge would allow prediction of the degree to which any particular control regime would result in maintaining desirable expressions of a town’s character as perceived by the user public. Different combinations of physical attributes, such as heights, masses, colors, siting arrangements and a host of other possible attributes, associated with different

Chapter 6: Facing Future Challenges

development proposals within different contextual settings that would result from application of various planning control regimes, could be tested. Regimes could then be modified based on the results, and again re-tested until one that is optimally effective in controlling the form of development in terms of achieving compatibility with community perceptions of town character is found. The results obtained from this approach would provide support to planners by giving them a tool to test the effectiveness of planning controls at conserving town/neighborhood character before such controls are incorporated into legally enforceable regulations. Being able to better conserve desirable expression of town character, which this approach should allow planners to do, can result in distinct economic benefits for communities, for example in places where the tourism industry relies on a town’s character to attract tourists, as many coastal towns around the world do. This is also true for maintaining residential property values, which are also often dependent on the quality of local character and environments, particularly in coastal and other high amenity places to which people are attracted. As discussed in the introductory chapter, attempts by local communities to stop applications for developments that they feel will be ‘out of character’ often result in legal challenges at the state level. Such challenges are both costly and time consuming for governments, developers and also the community. Having a methodology capable of testing the effectiveness of planning controls at conserving and/or enhancing a town’s character can give more precision to planning tools used for this purpose and would be expected to help avoid some of these legal challenges. Community participation in this way can also make the resultant control regulations easier to publicly defend, thus giving the controls greater legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Such an approach would also allow residents to become better informed about the complex issues and competing demands facing local planning decision-makers, and instill in them a more informed attitude about local planning problems and procedures. This in itself can result in significant social benefits.

6.2

Changing Place Character in the Face of Climate Change

6.2

Changing Place Character in the Face of Climate Change

As discussed in the introductory chapter of this book, our love of the sea and seaside locations, coupled with the influences of globalization, overall increases in the world’s population and associated urbanization have resulted in coastal areas undergoing significant changes, both environmentally and socially. Increases in tourism activity and residential development associated with what in Australia has been termed the ‘sea change phenomenon’ have been responsible for many of these changes. The main focus of this book, and the research reported in it, has been to explore one of the unfortunate consequences of these changes; the erosion of distinctive place character that is occurring in many small coastal towns around the world, often to the dismay of both local residents and visitors of these places, and which is a direct consequence of these changes. But the changes predicted to occur as a result of global warming and associated climate change – e.g. rising sea levels and more frequent and greater intensity of storm surges – will dramatically add to this transformation in the way that these places look and feel. But the way these changes are managed will, to a large degree, determine the shape of future environments and the environmental quality that will, or will not, be sustained in these places. The research presented in the previous chapters suggested that the recent boom in development associated with the influx of new residents to coastal towns in Australia and elsewhere has become a source of discontent for many residents who lament the transformation in place-character that this development has caused. This erosion of place character is primarily due to what residents and visitors to these places perceive to be ‘inappropriate development’ – new development that they feel is incompatible with their conceptions of local character. In many instances, the same landscape features that are perceived to be instrumental in conveying the distinctive character of these settings are also those that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (Green 2008). The challenge will be to conserve

155

key features of these towns, those integral to valued expressions of local place-character, in the face of both the onslaught of new and ‘inappropriate’ development, and, anticipated impacts that will result from climate change. How these changes will impact on the constellations of unique place features that define the character of these places can to some extent be predicted, and strategies implemented to adapt to these changes without destroying the desirable environmental quality, both actual and perceived, that many of these places possess (Green 2008). As the science of climate change and its likely impacts are refined over time, planning and design strategies used to adapt to, and help to mitigate, these impacts will need to be reviewed and updated where necessary. Appropriate and better governance arrangements for effectively managing these changes and protecting people and ecosystems in the face of these changes will be needed. This means that government at the local, state and federal levels need to be better integrated in order to respond to these changes, integration that is presently lacking (Harvey and Caton 2005; Vasey-Ellis 2007). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) has predicted that coastal areas in particular will be highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. These impacts will also be exacerbated due to increasing humaninduced pressures on these environments. As global warming increases, and changes to our climate that will result from this warming become more pronounced, a range of impacts will be felt in coastal areas, which will progressively become noticeable to their inhabitants. This will most likely be first seen as relatively subtle changes, such as some increases in erosion, greater peak flows to coastal rivers and estuaries, and a range of other more gradual changes. These changes will also begin to impact on constructed coastal infrastructure, such as piers and roads. Disturbances to marine and terrestrial coastal habitats, resulting in loss of biodiversity, can also be expected, and this too is likely to occur gradually. Due to predicted changes in coastal geomorphologic and hydrologic processes, accelerated

156

shifting of sand dunes and beaches can also be expected, and this will play a role in disrupting coastal ecosystems (Victorian Coastal Council 2008). People may only become perceptually aware of these changes over relatively long periods of time. The danger here is that they can become complacent. Some scientists now predict that events might materialize much more rapidly and be much more dramatic if certain ‘tipping points’ are reached, forcing people to act quickly in order to adapt to these changes much more urgently. Regardless of the rate of change it is predicted that the impacts of climate change will be noticeable sooner and more dramatically in coastal environments, as well as mountain environments, than in most other places. The inhabitants of some coastal places are already experiencing these changes, for example, the government of the Maldives has already started searching for land to purchase for a new homeland knowing that at some point, much of this low-lying island country is likely to be submerged. The point is, we all need to start preparing now for these impacts, even if they are not as yet readily observable or will only become so gradually. If we become complacent, we run the risk of reacting later in ways that will result in leaving less-than-optimal environments to the future generations. If the livability of coastal places is to be sustained, for humans and the other species that make these places their home, the way we adapt to the coming changes needs to be envisaged now and strategies for managing the impacts formulated. This will have to include a combination of innovative environmental design solutions, conservation measures, retrofitting of existing facilities and efforts for mitigating the causes of these changes. But, it is important that the future form of coastal settlements, as they change in response to climate change, is realized in ways that will insure that the best qualities of these places are preserved, and that development is in keeping with those qualities, along with the physical and psychological well-being of the inhabitants of these places.

Chapter 6: Facing Future Challenges

Given the ecological and social implications for coastal landscapes due to the continued development of these areas, and the threat that climate change poses to these environments, the challenge will be to balance conflicting place-based values – community social and environmental values and pubic safety concerns – against a desire for increased development to accommodate and service the influx of people that many coastal areas are experiencing and are likely to continue to experience. But there are ways we can work to mitigate and adapt more sensitively to both current pressures and the expected impacts that these places are likely to face in the future. But this means better management, planning and environmental design in coastal towns, in order to cope with the expected changes. Protecting coastal towns from climate change will require strategies for adapting existing landscape features in order to make them better able to cope with the impacts, such as those resulting from rising sea levels, more intense and frequent storm-surge events and other changes. In many instances this may necessitate the construction of dykes, sea walls, levees and other built features to protect settlements. It will also mean conservation, and in some instances changes to natural landscapes, for example, the creation of additional wetlands, wetland buffers to absorb additional storm water and stabilization of soils through re-vegetation and other possible actions. One thing is certain; inappropriate and unsustainable land-uses cannot be allowed to continue, particularly new building and hardscape development in low-lying areas, because these areas need to be conserved as a matter of urgency. Building in these areas must be restricted now. Retrofitting of buildings that already exist in such areas, or their relocation to higher ground, will also need to be considered. In addition to extreme events, such as increased storm surges and associated flooding of low lying areas, other more gradual and incremental impacts, such as those due to changes in ecosystems, will also be experienced and how we adapt to these changes is no less important. Coastal wetlands, river estuaries and other low-lying ecosystems in particular will

6.2

Changing Place Character in the Face of Climate Change

be highly vulnerable to these more gradual changes. And because ecologically rich riparian environments typically contribute a great deal to the distinctive character of coastal towns, the way in which these areas are protected and managed will be critical to both the ecological health and well-being and quality of life of the residents of these places, both humans and other species. As such, these areas will need to be identified and adaptation strategies implemented based on the best and most up-todate scientific evidence, along with consideration of the contribution that these places make to community conceptions of place-character. New wetland areas might need to be created and existing ones enlarged to help in absorbing anticipated increases in floodwaters. Foreshore dunes were found in the research reported here to be particularly instrumental in expressing the character of these towns and their conservation is also vitally important for protecting settlements from the impacts of climate change, for example, by protecting them from rising sea levels and more intense storm surge events. But in the research reported in Chapter 4, situations were identified by concerned citizens where residential houses have been built on top of sand dunes, for example, as was the case in the town of Port Fairy. The motivation to build on sand dunes is so that the houses can have views of the sea. However, in the process the dunes are modified, which decreases their ability to provide protection. In terms of conservation, the focus should be on maintaining the most valued characteristics of coastal places, such as conserving indigenous plant communities, ecological systems and the cultural heritage features that provide us with links with the natural world and to the past. In terms of adaptation, the most vulnerable aspects and features of these places need to be identified and strategies for protecting them formulated and ready for implementation. With regard to mitigation, undesirable changes need to be prevented wherever possible, and impacts of inevitable changes minimized. Mitigating the causes of global climate change can, and need to be, undertaken at the local level. One of the most effective strategies to help in this way for smaller coastal settlements would be to develop ways

157

of locally generating enough alternative energy, from wind, solar, tidal and wave action, and where available from geothermal sources, that would be able to power these settlements, and at the same time make them completely carbon neutral. If there is excess power produced it can be sold, thus creating an alternative source of revenue for these communities. Facing these future changes will require the collaboration of a range of researchers in the physical and social sciences working hand-in-hand with planners and environmental designers (urban planners, landscape architects, architects, engineers and construction specialists) to collaboratively find solutions for adapting settlements, and the public and private infrastructure within these places, to the anticipated impacts associated with climate change. This will require working together within the context of dynamic and uncertain realities, and changing understandings of the situation. Such collaborative efforts need to have the capacity to conduct innovative, crossdisciplinary and policy-relevant research to provide evidence from which innovative design solutions can be generated to insure the future safety and well being of the inhabitants of coastal settlements in the future. This will mean placing more emphasis on linking research with environmental design actions if we are to come up with innovative building, infrastructure and open space solutions that will be socially, environmentally, aesthetically, economically and institutionally responsible to combat the many problems, and adapt to the changes, that climate changes will bring. Specifically, researchers and designers will need to collaboratively work together to: • Promote and facilitate effective cross-disciplinary collaboration to address issues associated with climate change adaptation and mitigation. • Develop innovative computational tools and processes; including digital modeling and visualization techniques, to help creatively visualize climate change adapted settlement scenarios in order to better predict social and environmental responses. • Develop approaches for digital communication and sharing of databases that can facilitate remote collaboration from various places

158

Chapter 6: Facing Future Challenges

•

•

•

•

•

around the planet via the World Wide Web in addressing problems associated with how settlements adapt to climate change. Develop methods for advancing design as a collaborative activity by involving academia, industry and the public to find solutions to problems associated with climate change. Devise ways of making new technologically driven climate change adaptation design solutions compatible with human psychological and physical well-being. Figure out ways of improving building energy use through the design of improved air-conditioning and ventilation, heating and illumination systems. Develop a better understanding of the nexus between the design of coastal settlements and processes of globalization, technological change, and increased urbanization and population shifts that are, and will continue to, impact on these places. Explore innovative ways to conserve energy and develop alternative, clean sources of energy, including wind, solar, tidal and wave, geothermal and other possible sources, at the local level, to help limit greenhouse gas emissions. This technology needs to be integrated through innovative environmental design solutions and building technology into the fabric of people’s everyday surroundings such that the environmental and perceptual quality of these environments is maintained and ideally enhanced.

• Devise innovative solutions to land-use planning to adapt to predicted increases in flooding and storm water overflow due to more intense and frequent storm activity and sea-level rise. For example, insure coastal wetlands are preserved and where appropriate create new ones that will be needed in absorbing floodwaters. • Integrate knowledge and research methods from various disciplines, for example from fields as diverse as medicine and public health, environmental psychology and neurobiology, agriculture and plant science, zoology, physics and chemistry, climatologic, engineering, landscape architecture, architecture, environmental policy and other disciplines, to inform innovative design solutions for buildings and open spaces to best adapt future settlements to climate change. Through conservation, adaptation and mitigation, based on wise planning and innovative design decisions, the most valued cultural attributes and the integrity of natural environmental systems in coastal places can be conserved, and new environments consciously shaped in order to protect the inhabitants, both human and other species, while adapting to climate change impacts and working to help mitigate the causes. We have a responsibility to future generations that necessitates that we do not let the most valued aspects of these special places be destroyed through their exploitation, our reckless treatment of the planet or literally through loving these places to death.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics – ANB (2007). Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2005–06. Catalogue No. 3218.0. http://www.abs.gov. au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/productsbyCatalogue/797F86DBD192B8F8CA 2568A9001393CD?OpenDocument. Accessed March 12, 2007.

Altman, I. and Zube, E. H. (1989). Introduction. In I. Altman and E. H. Zube. I (eds), Public Places and Spaces. New York: Plenum Press, 1–5.

Bachelard, G. (1958). The Poetics of Space. New York: Orien.

Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience of Landscape. New York: Wiley.

Balling, J. D. and Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5–28.

Appleton, J. (1990). The Symbolism of Habitat. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Barker, R. (1968). Ecological Psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Appleyard, D. (1969). Why buildings are known: a predictive tool for architects and planners. Environment and Behavior, 1, 131–156.

Benevolo, L. (1971). History of Modern Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Appleyard, D. (1979). The environment as a social symbol. American Planning Association Journal, April, 143–153.

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, Arousal and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. San Francisco, CA: University of California Press.

Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.

Australian Bureau of Statistics – ANB (2004a). Seachange – New Coastal Residents. In Australian Social Trends (Cat. No. 4102.0), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps Toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.

Australian Bureau of Statistics – ANB (2004b). Regional Population Growth 2002–03, Australia and New Zealand (Cat. No. 3218.0), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Bernaldez, F. G. and Parra, F. (1979). Dimensions of landscape preferences from pairwise comparisons. National Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource. Incline Village, Washoe County, NV. April 23–25.

Australian Bureau of Statistics – ANB (2004c). How Many People Live in Australia’s Coastal Areas? In Year Book Australia 2004 (Cat. No.1301.0), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Bimler, D. and Kirkland, J. (1998). Perceptual modelling of product similarities using sorting data. Marketing Bulletin, 9, 16–27.

160

References

Bishop, I. D. and Lange, E. (2005). Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning: Technology and Applications. London, New York: Taylor & Francis.

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourism area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24, 5–12.

Block, J. (1961). The Q-Sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

Buttimer, A. (1980). Home, reach, and the sense of place. In A. Buttimer and D. Seamon (eds), The Human Experience of Space and Place. London: Croom Helm, 166–187.

Bourassa, S. C. (1991). The Aesthetics of Landscape. London: Belhaven Press. Brisbane City Council (1995). East Brisbane/Coorparoo Local Area Plan - Residential Development Study. Brisbane: Department of Development and Planning, Brisbane City Council. Brohman, J. (1996). New directions in tourism for third world development. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, (1), 48–70.

Canter, D. (1977). The Psychology of Place. London: The Architectural Press. Canter, D. (1983). The purposive evaluation of places: a facet approach. Environment and Behavior, 15, 659–698. Carlson, A. A. (1977). On the possibility of quantifying scenic beauty. Landscape Planning, 4, 131–172.

Brower, S. (1996). Good Neighborhoods: A Study of In-Town and Suburban Residential Environments. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Carman, D. (2007). Isn’t it time for an approach to landscape, townscape and coastal seascape assessment on which everyone agrees? Landscape Character Network Newsletter Vol. 25, Spring, 8–11.

Brown, B. B. and Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In I. Altman and S. M. Low (eds), Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press, 279–304.

Carroll, J. D. and Wish, M. (1974). Multidimensional perceptual models and measurement methods. In E. C. Carterette and M. P. Friedman (eds), Handbook of Perception. New York: Academic, 391–447.

Buhyoff, G. J., Wellman, J. D., Harvey, H., and Fraser, R. A. (1978). Landscape architects’ interpretations of people’s landscape preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, 6, 255–262.

Case, D. (1996). Contributions of journeys away to the definition of home: an empirical study of a dialectical process. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 1–15.

Burnley, I. and Murphy, P. (2004). Sea Change: Movement from Metropolitan to Arcadian Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Chaskin, R. J. (1998). Neighborhood as a unit of planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 13, 1, 11–30.

Buhyoff, G. J. and Wellman, J. D. (1979). Seasonable bias in landscape preference research. Forest Science, 2, 181–190.

Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood place attachment. In I. Altman and S. M. Low (eds), Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press, 63–72.

References

Cherem, G. J. (1973). Looking through the Eyes of the Public or Images as Social Indicators of Aesthetic Opportunity. PRWG-120-2, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Cherem, G. J. and Driver, B. L. (1977). Visitor Employed Photography: A Technique for Measuring Common Perceptions of Natural Environments. Technical review, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. Chokor, B. A. (1990). Urban landscape and environmental quality preferences in Ibadan, Nigeria: an exploration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19, 263–280. Collett, P. (1979). The repertory grid in psychological research. In G. P. Ginsburg (ed), Emerging Strategies in Social Psychology. Brisbane: Wiley, 225–251. Cooper, C. (1974). The house as a symbol of self. In J. Lang, C. Burnette, W. Moleski, and D. Vachon (eds), Designing for Human Behavior: Architecture and the Behavioral Sciences. Strousburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 130–146. Cosgrove, D. and Daniels, S. (1988). The Iconography of Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coulton, C.J., Korbin, J, Chanh, T. and Su, M. (2001). Mapping residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: a methodological note. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29 (2), 317–383. Craik, K. H. (1972a). Appraising landscape dimensions. In J. V. Krutilla (ed), Natural Environments: Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 292–346.

161

Craik, K. H. (1972b). Psychological factors in landscape appraisal. Environment and Behavior, 4, 255–266. Craik, K. H. (1975). Individual variations in landscape description. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos (eds), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 130–150. Crosett, K. M., Culliton, T.J., Wiley, P. C., and Goodspeed, T. R. (2004). Population Trends Along the Coastal United States: 1980–2008. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daniel, T. C. (2000). Measuring the quality of the natural landscape. American Psychologist, 45 (5), 633–637. Daniel, T. C. (2001). Wither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, (54), 267–281. Daniel, T. C. and Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-167. Fort Collins, CO. Daniel, T. C. and Vining, J. (1983). Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality”. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (eds), Human Behavior and Environment. New York: Plenum Press, 6, 39–83. DeBlieu, J. (1994). Revisiting Manteo’s sacred structure. Landscape Architecture, 84, 136.

162

De Jong, U. (2001). Blairgowrie: the meaning of place. Urban Policy and Research, 20(1), 73–86. Devlin, K. and Nasar, J. L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: some preliminary comparisons of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgement of the same. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 333–344. Downs, A. (1981). Neighborhoods and Urban Development. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. English Heritage (2009). Historic Seascape Characterisation. http://www. english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.001002003008006. Accessed May 1, 2009. Essex County Council (2008). Leigh Old Town Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. Prepared by Essex County Council for Southendon-Sea Borough Council. http://www.southend.gov.uk/resources/leigh_ old_town2ndrevsoscomments.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2009. European Environment Agency (2006). The changing faces of Europe’s coastal areas. Luxembourg: Office of the Official Publications of the European Communities. Fareham Borough Council Department of Planning (2005). Conservation Area Character Assessment, Fareham local Development Framework Town Quay Conservation Area Character Assessment. https://www. fareham.gov.uk/council/departments/planning/conservation/cacawar.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2009. Fareham Borough Council Department of Planning (2008). Portchester (Castle Street) Area Character Assessment. https://www.fareham.gov.uk/council/ departments/planning/portchestercaca.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2009.

References

Faulkenberry, L. V., Coggeshall, J.M., Backman, K. and Backman, S. (2000). A culture of servitude: the impact of tourism and development on South Carolina’s coast. Human Organization, 59 (1), 86–95. Feimer, N. R. (1984). Environmental perception: the effects of media, evaluative context, and observer sample. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 61–80. Feldman, R. M. (1988). Psychological Bonds with Types of Ssettlements: Looking Back to the Future (Vol. 2). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University Press, 335–342. Feldman, R. (1996). Constancy and change in attachments to types of settlements. Environment and Behavior, 28, 419–445. Fenton, M. (1985). Dimensions of meaning in the perception of natural settings and their relationship to aesthetic response. Australian Journal of Psychology, 37, 325–339. Fenton, M. and Pearce, P. (1988). Multidimensional scaling and tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 236–254. Fishwick, L. and Vining, J. (1992). Toward a phenomenology of recreation place. Annals of Tourism Research, 12, 57–63. Forgas, J. P. (1979). Multidimensional scaling: a discovery method in social psychology. In G. P. Ginsburg (ed), Emerging Strategies in Social Psychological Research. Brisbane: Wiley, 253–287. Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In L. J. Duhl (ed), The Urban Condition: People and Policy in the Metropolis. New York: Simon & Shuster. Gallagher, W. (1994). The Power of Place. New York: Harper Perenial.

References

Galway, N. and McEldowney, M. (2006). Place and special places: innovations in Conservation Practice in Northern Ireland. Planning Theory and Practice, 7 (4), 397–420. Garling, T. (1976). A multidimensional scaling and semantic differential technique study of the perception of environmental settings. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 17, 323–332. Garnham, H. L. (1985). Maintaining the Spirit of Place: A Process for Preservation of Town Character. Mesa, AZ: PDA Publishers. Geller, D. M., Cook, J. B., O’Connor, M. A., and Low, S. K. (1982). Perceptions of urban scenes by small town and urban residents: a multidimensional scaling analysis. In D. Bart, A. Chen, and G. Francescato (eds), Knowledge for Design: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA). College Park, MD: EDRA. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Giuliani, M. V. and Feldman, R. (1993). Place attachment in a developmental and cultural context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 267–274. Gobster, P. H. (1995). Aldo Leopold’s ecological esthetic: Integrating esthetic and biodiversity values. Journal of Forestry, 93 (2), 6–10. Gobster, P. H. (1999). An ecological aesthetic for forest management. Landscape Journal, 18 (1), 54–64. Godkin, M. A. (1980). Identity and place: clinical applications based on notions of rootedness and uprootedness. In A. Buttimer and D. Seamon

163

(eds), The Human Experience of Space and Place. London: Croom Helm Ltd. Golledge, R. G. (1976). Multidimensional analysis in the study of environmental behavior and environmental design. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (eds), Human Behavior and Environment (Vol. 2). New York: Plenum Press, 1–42. Green, R., Barclay, R. and McCarthy, M. M. (1985a). Sense of place in design. In R. Green, J. Schapper, I. Bishop, and M. M. McCarthy (eds), Design for Change: Community Renewal After the 1983 Bushfires. Melbourne: School of Environmental Planning, University of Melbourne, 55–74. Green, R. J., Barclay, R. and McCarthy, M. M. (1985b). Understanding community sense of place. Landscape Australia, 7 (4), 300–303. Green, R. (1995). Community perception of town character: a case study in Byron Bay, New South Wales. People and Physical Environment Research, 47, 20–33. Green, R. (1999). Form and meaning in community perception of town character. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 311–331. Green, R. (2000a). Notions of town character: a coastal community responses to change. Australian Planner, 37 (2), 76–86 Green, R. (2000b). Scenic and town character assessment: a methodology for community involvement. Australian Planner, 37 (1), 20–34. Green, R. (2005). Community perceptions of environmental and social change and tourism development on the island of Koh Samui, Thailand. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (1), 37–56.

164

Green, R. (2008). Place character and climate change along Australia’s Great Ocean Road. Places: Forum of Design for the Public Realm, 20 (2), 50–53. Groat, L. (1982). Meaning in post-modem architecture. An examination using the multiple sorting task. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 3–22.

References

Harrison, J. and Sarre, P. (1975). Personal construct theory in the measurement of environmental images. Environment and Behavior, 7, 3–58. Harrison, D. and Price, M. F. (1996). Fragile environments, fragile communities? An introduction. In M. F. Price (ed), People and Tourism in Fragile Environments. New York: Wiley, 1–18.

Guelden, M. (1995). Thailand: Into the Spirit World. Singapore: Times Editions Pte. Ltd.

Hartig, T., and Evans, G. W. (1993). Psychological foundations of nature experience. In T. Garling and R. G. Golledge (eds), Behavior and Environment: Psychological and Geographical Approaches. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 427–455.

Gurran, N., Sqauire, C. and Blakely, E.J. (2005). Meeting the Sea Change Challenge: Best Practice Models of Local and Regional Planning for Sea Change Communities. Sydney: Planning Research Centre, The University of Sydney.

Harvey, N. and Caton, B. (2005). Coastal Management in Australia. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Habe, R. (1989). Public design controls in American communities. Town Planning Review, 60, 195–219. Hair, J. F. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hall, R., Purcell, A. T., Thorne, R., and Metcalfe, J. (1976). Multidimensional scaling analysis of interior, designed spaces. Environment and Behavior, 8, 595–610. Haney, W. G. and Knowles, E. S. (1978). Perception of neighborhoods by city and suburban residents. Human Ecology, 6 (2), 201–214.

Heath, T. (1992). Design review, a theoretical framework. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Design Review. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati. Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, Habitats, and Aesthetics. In Kellert, S.R. and Wilson, E.O. (eds), The Biophilia. Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, 138–172. Hershberger, R. G. (1988). A study of meaning and architecture. In J. Nasar (ed), Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 175–193.

Hanyu, K. (1993). The affective meaning of Tokyo: verbal and non-verbal approaches. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 161–172.

Hershberger, R. G. and Cass, R. C. (1974). Predicting user responses to buildings. In D. H. Carson (ed), Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications – Part 2. Strousburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 117–134.

Harper, S. (1987). A humanistic approach to the study of rural populations. Journal of Rural Studies, 3, 309–319.

Herzog, T. R. (1987). A cognitive analysis of preferences for natural environments: mountains, canyons, and deserts. Landscape Journal, 6, 140–152.

References

Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27–43.

165

Hinrichsen, D. (2009). The coastal population explosion: The Next 25 Years: Global Issues. oceanservice.noaa.gov/websites/retiredsites/natdia_ pdf/3hinrichsen.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2009

Herzog, T. R. and Bosley, P. J. (1992). Tranquillity and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 115–127.

Horayangkura, V. (1978). Semantic dimensional structures: a methodological approach. Environment and Behavior, 10, 555–584.

Herzog, T. R. and Gale, T. A. (1996). Preference for urban buildings as a function of age and nature context. Environment and Behavior, 28, 44–72.

Hough, M. (1990). Out of Place: Restoring Identity to the Regional Landscape. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. (1976). The prediction of preference for familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior, 8, 627–645.

Hubbard, P. (1996). Design quality: a professional or public issue. Environments by Design, 1, 21–37.

Herzog, T. R., Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, S. (1982). The prediction of preference for unfamiliar urban places. Population and Environment, 5, 43–49.

Hull, R. B. (1992). Image congruity, place attachment and community design. The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 9, 181–192.

Hester, R. T. (1975). Neighborhood Space. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

Hull, R. B. and Steward, W. P. (1992). Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgements. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 101–114.

Hester, R. T. (1985a). The sacred structure of Manteo. In S. Klien, R. Wener and S. Lehmann (eds), Environmental Change/Social Change: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. New York: EDRA, 91–100.

Hull, R. B. and McCarthy, M. M. (1988). Change in the landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, 265–278.

Hester, R. T. (1985b). Subconscious landscapes of the heart. Places, 2, 10–22.

Hull, R. B. and Revell, R. B. (1989). Cross-cultural comparison of landscape scenic beauty evaluations: a case study in Bali. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 177–191.

Hester, R. T. (1990). The sacred structure in small towns: a return to Manteo, North Carolina. Small Town, January–February, 4–21. Hillary, M., Nancarrow, B., Griffin, G., and Syme, G. (2001). Tourist perceptions of environmental impact. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (4), 853–867. Hinrichsen, D. (1999). Coastal Waters of the World: Trends, Threats, and Strategies. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Hull, R. B., Lam, M. and Vigo, G. (1994). Place identity: symbols of the self in the urban fabric. Landscape and Urban Planning, 28, 109–120. Hummon, D. M. (1992). Community attachment: local sentiment and sense of place. In I. Altman and S. M. Low (eds), Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press, 253–277.

166

References

Hunter, A. (1974). Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Change of Chicago’s Local Communities. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 253.

Kaplan, R. (1977b). Preference and everyday nature. In D. Stokels (ed), Perceptions on Environment and Behavior: Theory, Research and Applications. New York: Plenum.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Brussels: IPCC.

Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In J. F. Wohlwill (ed), Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York: Plenum.

Jackson, J. B. (1994). A Sense of Place, A Sense of Time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jakle, J. A. (1987). Character in the landscape. In J. A. Jakle (ed), The Visual Elements of Landscape. Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press, 75–115.

Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. (1982). The green experience. In S. Kaplan and R. Kaplan (eds), Humanscape. Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrich’s Books. Kaplan, R. (1985). Nature at the doorstep: residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 12, 161–176.

Jencks, C. (1985). Modern Movements in Architecture. London: Penguin.

Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect and cognition: environmental preferences from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19, 3–32.

Joseph, C. and Kavoori, A. (2001). Mediated resistance: tourism and the host community. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (4), 998–1009.

Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: a Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Juarez, A. M. (2002). Ecological degradation, global tourism, and inequality: Maya interpretations of the changing environment in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Human Organization, 61 (2), 113–124.

Kaplan, R. and Herbert, S. (1987). Cultural and sub-cultural comparisons in preferences for natural settings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 14, 281–293.

Kaplan, R. (1975). Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush and J. G. Fabos (eds), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions, and Resources. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 118–129.

Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R. and Wendt, J. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 354–356.

Kaplan, R. (1977a). Patterns of environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 9, 195–216.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and Ryan, R. (1998). With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.

References

167

Kasmar, J. V. (1988). The development of a usable lexicon of environmental descriptors. In J. Nasar (ed), Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 144–155.

Leopold, A. (1981 – Originally published in 1949). A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kellert, S.R. (1993). The biological basis for human values of nature. In S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson (eds), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, 42–72.

Lopez, C. S., McCann, J., Islas, M., Rubinoff, P. (1998). Community Strategy for the Management of Xcalak, Quintana Roo, Mexico. English Summary. Narragansett, Rhode Island: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, The University of Rhode Island.

Kelly, G. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. Kennedy, R., Riquier, C. and Sharp, B. (1996). Practical applications of correspondence analysis to categorical data in market research. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 5 (1), 56–70. King, B., Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of tourism: host perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 650–665. Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimising goodness of fit. Psychometrika, 29, 1–27.

Low, S. M. (1992). Symbolic ties that bind. In I. Altman and S. M. Low (eds), Place Attachment (Vol. 12). New York: Plenum Press, 165–185. Low, S. M. and Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman and S. M. Low (eds), Place Attachment (Vol. 12). New York: Plenum Press. Lowenthal, D. and Prince, H. C. (1965). English landscape tastes. The Geographical Review, 55, 188–222. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kruskal, J. B. and Wish, M. (1990). Multidimensional Scaling (15th ed.). Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications.

Lynch, K. (1972). What Time is This Place? Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press.

Kunstler, J. M. (1993). The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of American Man-Made Landscapes. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lynch, K. (1976). Managing the Sense of a Region. Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press.

Latimer, D. A., Daniel, T. C. and Hugo, H. (1980). The Relationship between Air Quality and Human Perception of Scenic Areas. San Rafael, CA: Systems Application Co.

Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and Behavior, 15, 487–511.

Lee, S. A. (1982). The value of local area. In J. R. Gold and J. Burgess (eds), Valued Environments. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Madan, S. and Rawat, L. (2000). The impacts of tourism on the environment of Mussoorie, Garhwal Himalaya, India. The Environmentalist, 20, 249–255.

168

Mansprerger, M. (1995). Tourism and cultural change in small scale societies. Human Organization, 54 (1), 87–94. Marans, R. W. and Spreckelmeyer, K. F. (1982). Measuring overall architectural quality: a component of building evaluation. Environment and Behavior, 14, 652–670. Marean, C.W., Bar-Matthews, M., Bernatchez, J., Fisher, E. Goldberg, P., Herries, A. I. R., Jacobs, Z., Jerardino, A., Karkanas P., Minichillo, T., Nilssen, P.J., Thompson, E., Watts, I. and Williams, H.M. (2007). Early human use of marine resources and pigment in South Africa during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature 449, 905–908. McCarthy, M. M. (1979). Complexity and valued landscapes. A paper presented at the National Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resources. Incline Village, Washoe County, NV, 235–240, April 23–25. McGoodwin, J. R. (1986). The tourism impact-syndrome in developing coastal communities: a Mexican case. Journal of Coastal Zone Management, 14 (1–2), 131–146. McKercher, B. (1993). Some fundamental truths about tourism: understanding tourism’s social and environmental impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1 (1), 6–16. Meulman, J. J. (1998). A distance-based biplot for multidimensional scaling of multivariate data. In C. Hayashi, N. Ohsumi and Y. Baba (eds), Data Science, Classification, and Related Methods. Tokyo: Springer, 509–517. Munier, C. (1998). Sacred Rocks and Buddhist Caves in Thailand. Bangkok: White Lotus.

References

Nankervis, M. (2003). Rescode – Victoria’s new residential planning tool: new line on planning and design or just more of the same. Australian Planner, 40 (2), 91–96. Nasar, J.L. (1980). Influence of familiarity on response to visual qualities of neighborhoods. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 635–642. Nasar, J. L. (1988). Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes. In J. L. Nasar (ed), Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 275–289. Nasar, J. L. (1989). Perception; cognition; and evaluation of urban places. In I. Altman and E. H. Zube (eds), Public Places and Spaces. New York: Plenum Press, 31–56. Nasar, J. L. (1990). The evaluative image of the city. American Planning Association Journal, Winter, 41–53. Nash, R. (ed) (1967). Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Nassauer, J. I. (1995). Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape Journal, 14 (2), 161–169. National Sea Change Taskforce (NSCT) (2006). The challenge of coastal growth. http://www.seachangetaskforce.org.au/Publications/publication. html. Accessed November 10, 2006. Nelessen, A. C. (1994). Vision for a new American dream: process, principles, and ordnance to plan and design small communities. Chicago, IL: Planners Press, American Planning Association.

References

Norberg-Schulz, C. (1971). Existence, Space and Architecture. London: Studio Vista. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. New York: Rizzoli. O’Connor, K. (2001). Coastal development: Just a little shift in Australia’s coastal geography? People and Place, 9 (4), 49–61. Oelrichs, I. and Prosser, G. (1992). Endemic Tourism. Sydney: Pacific Asia Travel Association.

169

Parameswaran, G. (2003). Experimenter instructions as a mediator in the effects of culture on mapping one’s neighborhood. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 409–417. Parkes, D. and Thrift, N. (1980). Time, Spaces, and Places: A Chronographical Perspective. Brisbane: Wiley. Parsons, R. and Daniel, T. C. (2002). Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 43–56. Pedersen, D. M. (1978). Relationship between environmental familiarity and environmental preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 739–743.

Oostendorp, A., and Berlyne, D. E. (1978). Dimensions in the perception of architecture: Identification and interpretation of dimensions of similarity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 19, 73–82.

Pennartz, P. J. J. (1986). Atmosphere at home: a qualitative approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 135–153.

Orians, G. H. (1986). An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C. Penning-Rowsell and D. Lowenthal (eds), Landscape Meanings and Values. London: Allen & Unwin, 1–22.

Pennartz, P. J. J. and Elsinga, M. G. (1990). Adults, adolescents, and architects: differences in perception of the urban environment. Environment and Behavior, 22, 675–714.

Orians, G. H. and Heerwagen, J.H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (eds) The Adapted Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 555–580.

Pitt, D. G., and Zube, E. H. (1979). The Q-sort method: use in landscape assessment research and landscape planning. In G. H. Elsner and R. C. Smardon (eds), Our National Landscape. Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, PSW-35, 227–234.

Osgood, C., Suci, G. and Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Palmer, J. (1983). Assessment of coastal wetlands in Dennis, Massachusetts. In R. C. Smardon (ed), The Future of Wetland – Assessing Visual Cultural Values. Totowa, NJ: Allenheld, Osmun, 65–79.

Pitt, D. G. and Zube, E. H. (1987). Management of natural environments. In D. Stokols and I. Altman (eds), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: Wiley, 1009–1041. Preiser, W. and Rohane, K. (1988). A survey of aesthetic controls in English speaking countries. In J. L. Nasar (ed), Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 422–433.

170

References

Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 147–169.

Rivlin, L. G. (1982). Group membership and place meaning in an urban neighbourhood. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 75–93.

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K. and Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.

Rivlin, L.G. (1987). The neighborhood, personal identity, and group afflictions. In Altman, I and Wandersman, A. (eds), Neighborhood and Community Environments. New York: Plenum Press.

Rapoport, A. (1972). Australian Aborigines and the definition of place. In W. J. Mitchell (ed), Environmental Design: Research and Practice – Proceedings of the Third EDRA Conference. Los Angeles: EDRA, 1–14.

Robinson, S.K. (1991). Inquiry into the Picturesque. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Rapoport, A. (1977). Human Aspects of Urban Form. Oxford: Pergamon. Rapoport, A. (1982). The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Rowles, G. D. (1980). Growing old ‘inside’: aging and attachment to place in an Appalachian community. In N. Datan and N. Lochmann (eds), Transitions of Aging. New York: Academic. Rowles, G. D. (1983). Place and personal identity in old age: observations from Appalachia. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 299–313.

Rapoport, A. (1985). Place Image and Place Making. Unpublished keynote paper to the People and Physical Environment Research Conference (PAPER) – Place and Place Making – Melbourne, Australia, June 19–22.

Rubinstein, R. L. and Parmelee, P. A. (1992). Attachment to place and the representation of the life course by the elderly. In I. Altman and S. M. Low (eds), Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press, 139–163.

Real, E., Arce, C. and Sabucedo, J. M. (2000). Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data and prediction of their scenic beauty in north-western Spain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 355–373.

Russell, J. A. and Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (2), 311–322.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. London: Pion Ltd.

Russell, J. A., Ward, L. A. and Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: a factor analytic study. Environment and Behavior, 13 (3), 259–288.

Riley, R. (1992). Attachment to the ordinary landscape. In I. Altman and S. M. Low (eds), Place Attachment. New York: Plenum Press, 13–35. Riley, S. and Palmer, J. (1976). Of attitudes and latitudes: a repertory grid study of perceptions of seaside resorts. In P. Slater (ed), The Measurement of Interpersonal Space by Grid Technique. London: Wiley.

Saarinen, T. F. and Cooke, R. V. (1971). Public perception of environmental quality in Tucson, Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science, 6, 260–274. Salt, B. (2003). The Big Shift: Welcome to the Third Australian Culture: The Bernard Salt Report, South Yarra, Victoria: Hardie Grant Books.

References

171

Schiffman, S. S., Reynolds, M. L. and Young, F. W. (1981). Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods, and Applications. London: Academic.

Seamon, D. and Mugerauer, R. (1985). Dwelling, Place and Environment: Towards a Phenomenology of Person and World. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Schomaker, J. H. (1979). Measurement of preference for proposed landscape modifications. In T. Daniel, E. H. Zube and B. L. Driver (eds), Assessing Amenity Resource Values-General Technical Report RM-68. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 67–70.

Seddon, G. (1979). The genius loci and Australian landscape. Landscape Australia, May, 66–73.

Schroeder, H. W. (1984). Environmental perception rating scales: a case for simple methods of analysis. Environment and Behavior, 16, 573–598.

Shafer, E. L. and Richards, T. A. (1974). A Comparison of Viewer Reactions to Outdoor Scenes and Photographs of those Scenes. Research Paper 302. USDA Forest Service Northeast Forest Experiment Station. Upper Darby, PA.

Schroeder, H. W. (1991). Preference and meaning of arboretum landscapes: combining quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 231–248. Schuster, J. M. D. (1990). Growth and loss of regional character. Places, 6, 78–87. Scott, C. and Canter, D. (1997). Picture or place? A multiple sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 263–281. Seamon, D. (1979). A Geography of the Lifeworld. New York: St. Martin’s. Seamon, D. (1982). The phenomenological contribution to environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 119–140. Seamon, D. (1989). Humanistic and phenomenological advances in environmental Design. The Humanistic Psychologist, 17, 280–293. Seamon, D. and Nordin, C. (1980). Marketplace as place ballet: a Swedish example. Landscape, 24, 35–41.

Sell, J. L. and Zube, I. H. (1986). Perception of and response to environmental change. The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 3, 33–54.

Shepard, P. (1967). Man in the Landscape. New York: Ballantine Books. Shepard, P. (1993). On animal friends. In S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson (eds), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, 275–300. Shuttleworth, S. (1980). The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11, 61–76. Sime, J. D. (1986). Creating places or designing spaces? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 49–63. Sixsmith, J. (1986). The meaning of home: an exploratory study of environmental experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 281–298. Smith, R. (1991). Beach resorts: a model of development evolution. Landscape and Urban Planning, 21, 189–210. Sommer, R. and Summit, J. (1995). An exploratory study of preferred tree form. Environment and Behavior, 27 (4), 540–557.

172

Southworth, M. (1989). Theory and practice of contemporary urban design. Town Planning Review, 60, 369–402. Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: a meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907–913. Stansfield C.A. and Richert, J.E. (1970) The recreational business district. Journal of Leisure Research, 2 (4), 213–225. State of Jersey Planning and Environment Committee (1999). Jersey Countryside character appraisal including intertidal areas and offshore reefs. http:// www.gov.je/Environment/NaturalEnvironment. Accessed Nov. 10, 2009. Steele, F. (1981). The Sense of Place. Boston, MA: CBI Publishing. Stewart, T. R., Middleton, P., Downton, M. and Ely, D. (1984). Judgements of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgement of the visual environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 283–302. Stimson, R. and Minnery, J. (1998). Why people move to the ‘sun-belt’: a case study of long-distance migration to the Gold Coast, Australia. Urban Studies, 35 (2) 193–214. Stock, C, Bishop, I.D. and Green, R.J. (2008). Exploring landscape changes using an envisioning system in rural community workshops. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79 (3–4), 229–239. Stringer, P. (1976). Repertory grids in the study of environmental perception. In P. Slater (ed), The Measurement of Interpersonal Space by Grid Technique. London: Wiley. Summit, J. and Sommer, R. (1999). Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environment and Behavior, 31 (4), 550–556.

References

Takane, Y., Young, F. W. and de Leeuw, J. D. (1977). Metric individual differences in multidimensional scaling: an alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 42, 7–67. Taylor, J. G., Zube, E. H. and Sell, J. L. (1987). Landscape assessment and perception research methods. In R. B. Bechtal, R. W. Marans and W. Michelson (eds), Methods in Environmental and Behavioral Research. Malabar, FL: Van Nostard Reinhold Co, 361–393. Teye, V., Sonmez, S. F. and Sirakaya, E. (2002). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (5), 668–688. Thompson, J. (1991). The spirit of the place. Town and Country Planning, February, 36–37. Tips, W. E. J. and Savasdisara, T. (1986). The influence of the environmental background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 125–133. Tosun, C. (2002). Host perceptions of impacts: a comparative tourism study. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1), 231–253. Tourism Alliance Victoria (2007). Inquiry into Rural and Regional Tourism. Tourism Alliance http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rrc/inquiries/tourism/ PDF%20for%20web/050_Tourism%20Alliance.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2009. Tuan, Y. F. (1974a). Sense of place: humanistic perspective. In C. Board (ed), Progress in Geography: International Reviews of Current Research (Vol. 6). London: Edward Arnold, 211–253. Tuan, Y. F. (1974b). Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. London: Edward Arnold.

References

Tuan, Y. F. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Landscape, 24, 3–8. Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 13: 523–556. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420–421. Ulrich, R. S. (1986). Human responses to vegetation and landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13: 29–44. Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, Biophobia, and Natural Landscapes. In S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson (eds), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, 73–137. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, E. F., Miles, M. A. and Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230. Ulrich, R.S., Lunden, O. and Eltinge, J.I. (1996). Effects of viewing nature and abstract pictures on heart surgery patients. Abstract in J.L. Nasar and B.B. Brown (eds), Public and Private Places. Proceedings of the TwentySeventh Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Edmond, Oklahoma: EDRA, 198–199. United Nations (2002). Oceans: The Source of Life. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ convention_agreements_20years/oceanssouroeflife.pdf. Accessed: April 19, 2009. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992). Agenda 21 and the UNCED Proceedings, New York: Oceana Publications.

173

United States Government (1969). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Public Law 91-190 83 Stat. 892–856. Uzzell, D. L. and Leward, K. (1990). The psychology of landscape. Landscape Design, 189, 3–10. Vasey-Ellis, N. (2007). Planning for Climate Change in Coastal Victoria. Unpublished Master of Urban Planning Thesis, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne. VCAT - Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal: Planning and Environment (2002). Great Aireys View Pty. Ltd. v Aireys Inlet and District Association, List - P1149/2002. Victorian Coastal Council (2008). The Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008: Growth and Population. Melbourne: Victorian Coastal Council. www.vcc. vic.gov.au. Accessed: April 19, 2009. Victorian Department of Infrastructure (2001a). Understanding Neighbourhood Character, General Practice Note. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Infrastructure. Victorian Department of Infrastructure (2001b). Great Ocean Road Region: Towards a Vision for the Future. Geelong, Australia: Department of Infrastructure. Victorian Department of Infrastructure (2001c). The New Provisions of Recode: Cl 54 & 56 of the Victorian Planning Provisions. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Infrastructure. Violich, F. (1985). Toward revealing the sense of place: an intuitive “reading” of four Dalmatrion towns. In D. Seamon and R. Mugerauer (eds), Dwelling, Place and Environment. New York: Columbia University Press, 113–136.

174

References

Weller, S. C. and Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic Data Collection. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Ziegler, U.E. (2002). The Bechers’ Industrial Lexicon. Art in America, 93 (June): 143.

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The Social Life of Small Urban Space. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.

Zube, E. H. (1976). Perception of landscape and land use. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (eds), Human Behavior and Environment. New York: Plenum Press, 87–121.

Williams, K.J.H and Cary, J. (2002). Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior, 34 (2), 257–274. Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wilson, E.O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson (eds), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Harvard University Press. Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: the environment as a source of affect. In I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (eds), Human Behavior and Environment (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press, 37–86. Wohlwill, J. F. (1979). What belong where: research on fittingness of man-made structures in natural settings. In T. C. Daniel, E. H. Zube and B. L. Driver (eds), Assessing Amenity Resource Values-General Technical Report RM-68. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service-Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 48–57. World Travel and Tourism Council (2009). Key Facts at a Glance. at: http:// www.wttc.org/eng/Tourism_Research/Tourism_Economic_Research. Accessed May 11, 2009. Yang, Byoung-E. and Kaplan, R. (1990). The perception of landscape style: a cross-cultural comparison. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19, 251–262. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G. and Anderson, T. W. (1974). Perception and Measurement of Scenic Resource Values in the Southern Connecticut River Valley. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Institute for Man and Environment. Publication No. R-74–1. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G., and Anderson, T. W. (1975). Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush and J. G. Fabos (eds), Landscape Assessment: Values, Perceptions and Resources. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 151–167. Zube, E. H. and Mills, L. V. (1976). Cross-cultural explorations in landscale perception. In E. H. Zube (ed), Studies in Landscape Perception. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Institute for Man and Environment, 162–169. Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., and Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape Planning, 9, 1–33. Zube, E. H., Pitt, D. G. and Evans, G. W. (1983). A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 115–128. Zube, E. H., Vinning, J., Law, C. S. and Bechtel, R. B. (1985). Perceived urban quality: a cross-cultural bimodal study. Environment and Behavior, 17, 327–350. Zube, E. H., Simcox, D. E. and Law, C. S. (1987). Perceptual landscape stimulations: history and prospect. Landscape Journal, 6, 62–79.