Thesis (M.S.)--Oregon State University, 1993. / Includes mounted photographs. Typescript (photography). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 52-56). Also available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Murdoch University, 2007. / Thesis submitted to the Division of Science and Engineering. Includes bibliographical references (p. 373-395)

Thesis (M.Sc.) - Carleton University, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 20-28). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (M.L. Arch.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1993. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 165-168). Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2005. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 309-329).

Thesis (M.S.)--Ohio State University, 1987. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 138-143). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center

No description available.

M.A.

Existing verbal standards accepted in visual resource management (U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1975 and U.S.D.I., Bureau of Land Management, 1980) as a reference for evaluating the landscape have certain shortcomings. One hypothesis is that visual images of the landscape which are used as a basis or standard along with landscape descriptions for measuring different levels or categories of a landscape attribute (visual standards) will produce more consistent ratings than using verbal standards. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the use of visual standards as a predictive tool to improve landscape assessment. This study involved the development of visual standards and a comparative survey study. One group of survey respondents was asked to rate or evaluate selected landscape variables (complexity and vividness) for a set of 15 landscape scenes. Another group used more traditional verbal standards to evaluate the same variables for the same landscape scenes. The effects of visual standards was compared with the effect of verbal standards on (1) assessing the landscape; (2) people’s attitudes toward landscape ratings; and (3) people’s attitudes toward the rating process. The findings indicate that using visual standards cannot produce more consistent results for rating landscape variables. Further research needs to be conducted for excluding the external variables which may affect the quality of visual standards. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that visual standards are perceived by the user as a more accurate reference. The findings also indicate that using visual standards result in a broader use of the rating scale particularly at the lower end of the scale and cause lower rating results for the tested scenes compared to verbal standards. Although using visual standards to access complexity and vividness cannot improve their predictive relationship to preference, the past research indicating a strong relationship between landscape complexity and visual quality may be influenced or biased by people’s preference for the landscape. In terms of the use of image based visual standards in computer application, this limited research has been unable to find any clear advantages in terms or reliability or validity. However, visual standards do not appear to be any less reliable and valid than verbal standards. / Master of Landscape Architecture

The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to present a methodology that is systematic, yet flexible, for the descriptive assessment of landscapes, and second, to develop a minimal set of basic dimensions or scales that are invariant across observers and places described. The Landscape Adjective Check List (LACL), first developed by Kenneth Craik (1971), and modeled after the Gough Adjective Check List (1960) used for personality assessment, was administered to a group of 150 college students. Each was instructed to rate a series of natural scenes by marking off those adjectives they felt were descriptive of the particular scene they were viewing. The major results of a principal components factor analysis suggested that, within the range of scenes used, there are approximately twenty dimensions which people use in their descriptive assessments of natural scenery. The first factor, termed General Positive Evaluation, appeared consistently throughout the literature on both environmental and landscape perception and assessment. Other dimensions appearing both in the factor analysis and the literature included Ruggedness, Potency, Spaciousness, Barrenness, and Cultivation/Vegetation. A comparison was made between the factor analytic scales and a set of scales which had initially been hypothesized to be relevant to variations among landscapes. These dimensions consisted of two sets of scales which had been generated in different ways. First, a set of dimensions was proposed based upon a content analysis of the Landscape Adjective Check List. A second set of dimensions was developed based upon an analysis of the research literature. In general, the findings indicated a moderate to high degree of convergence between the factor analytic scales and the two sets of hypothesized scales. Before generalizing any further, however, it will be necessary to obtain comparable results from other persons (besides college students) and a wider range of scenery, as stimuli. / M.S.