Key Concepts in a Framework for
Analysing Visual Landscape Character
M. TVEIT*, A˚. ODE** & G. FRY*
*Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences,
A˚s, Norway **Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, UK
ABSTRACT A transparent and theory-based scheme for analysing visual character is presented.
Based on a literature review, nine key visual concepts are identified: stewardship, coherence,
disturbance, historicity, visual scale, imageability, complexity, naturalness and ephemera. The
nine visual concepts are presented in a framework of four levels of abstraction, described through
the concepts’ visual dimensions, landscape attributes contributing to the concepts and potential
visual indicators suggested for mapping and quantifying the concepts. Each of these concepts
focuses on different aspects of the landscape important for visual quality, where visual quality is
an holistic experience of them all. The visual concepts presented are used to describe different
characteristics of visual landscapes, rather than presenting a normative value for visual quality. It
is believed that this framework can be important for landscape assessment and the compilation of
landscape character.
KEY WORDS: Visual character, visual concepts, landscape assessment
Introduction
One of the major challenges in analysing landscape change is the lack of operational
landscape indicators of visual quality. For many environmental issues, including
pollution, soil erosion, crop quality, access and biodiversity, we have a strong
conceptual base to guide the search for quantitative indicators. For visual aspects of
landscapes this conceptual base is weak, which has slowed progress in developing
visual indicators, and is urgently required if we are to be able to compare different
landscapes or the same landscape over time. An Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) meeting on landscape indicators in 2002
(Dramstad & Sogge, 2003) identified the state of landscape indicators as much less
well developed than indicators of many of the other countryside values. In other
words, the theoretical base for developing visual indicators requires more work to
bring it to a level comparable with that already reached by indicators of other
interests.
Through the years, several frameworks for analysing and describing visual quality
and character of the landscape have been developed (see, for example, the overviews
Correspondence Address: M. Tveit, Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning,
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, 1432 A˚s, Norway. Email: mari.tveit@umb.no
Landscape Research,
Vol. 31, No. 3, 229 – 255, July 2006
ISSN 0142-6397 Print/1469-9710 Online/06/030229-27  2006 Landscape Research Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/01426390600783269

by Lothian (1999) and Zube et al. (1982)). According to Lothian (1999), the work on
analysing visual aspects of landscape could be divided into:
. the expert approach, where the focus is on characterizing the landscape as an
object;
. the subjectivist approach, where the focus is on the viewer’s experience of the
landscape.
In order to analyse the effect of landscape changes we believe that it is important to
be able to characterize the visual landscape as an object, while the interpretation of
these changes needs to take the viewer’s experience into account. Between-group
differences in aesthetic quality assessment can be considerable (Morgan, 1999), and
there is a need to find objective measurements that are meaningful to people.
Palmer (2000) discusses some of the possible reasons for the lack of research in this
area, such as the challenge of achieving reliability in the results, the difficulty of
representing real multi-dimensional landscapes through photos in empirical studies,
and the subjectivity of most landscape analyses. The body of theory in landscape
visual assessment is, however, developing.
Three of the most widely applied practical frameworks for analysing visual
qualities are Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (see, for example, Swanwick,
2002), Scenic Beauty Estimation (SBE) Method (for example, Daniel & Boster, 1976)
and Visual Resource Management (VRM) system (for example, Bureau of Land
Management, 1980). The LCA was developed in the United Kingdom (UK) and has
been widely used in various stages of the planning process during the last 20 years.
The SBE was developed for the United States (US) Forestry Department during the
1970s and has been widely applied in forestry planning in the USA. The VRM
system was developed by the Bureau of Land Management in the USA, where it has
been used to maintain and enhance the scenic quality of public lands.
One of the limitations with all three methods in relation to analysing landscape
change is that they rely on field data for their estimation. For the LCA and VRM
methods it is at the field survey level that most of the visual characterization is
assessed, whereas the SBE is based on the rating of landscape photographs. This
makes these approaches less applicable for evaluating landscape change based on
land-cover data or remote sensing.
We propose a framework for visual character assessment that:
. provides transparent data on landscape structure;
. is consistent between recorders;
. uses readily available data;
. is easily integrated with information on other landscape functions.
Such a framework would make it possible to analyse the consequences of landscape
change for visual character in planning and policy evaluation. We contribute to the
development of such a framework by proposing an overview of the dominant visual
concepts and their theoretical base. Even though most of the literature sources were
European or North American, and dominated by agricultural or forest landscape
research, we feel that the concepts identified have relevance for other contexts.
230 M. Tveit et al.