*Firmansyah Firmansyah  -  Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Iwan Sudradjat  -  Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Widjaja Martokusumo scopus  -  , Indonesia
Budi Faisal  -  Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia
Received: 7 Aug 2017; Published: 31 Oct 2017.
Open Access
Citation Format:
The design of campus landscape is expected to reflect the institution values, provide the character and the spirit of place to campus environment. It is highly influenced by visual experience and impression of campus environment. There are two methods in landscape visual quality assessment: descriptive assessment method and evaluative assessment method. Both assessment methods cannot be done simultaneously, but as a sequence phase. Descriptive assessment method should be done first to obtain a reference for evaluative assessment method. Landscape visual quality evaluative assessment method is used to measure the level of public assessment about visual quality and visual response. Information Processing Theory is used to develop the visual quality evaluative assessment method and to obtain unified integration between descriptive assessment and evaluative assessment. The development of evaluative assessment method includes the process of comparing, averaging, or determine the ranking of each environmental hue or landscape areas in campus, based on the public or college user community preferences.
Keywords: landscape visual quality; evaluative assessment; assessment method; campus landscape.

Article Metrics:

  1. Anderson, L.M. 1981. Land Use Designations Affect Perception of Scenic Beauty in Forest Landscapes, Forest Science, 27(2):343-400.
  2. Appleton, J. (1988). Prospects and Refuges Revisited, 27 – 44. in Nasar, J.L. (Ed)., Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Applications, Cambridge University Press.
  3. Balling, J.D. & Falk, J.H. (1982). Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments, Journal of Environment and Behavior, 14(1):5-28.
  4. Dearinger, J.A. (1979). Measuring Preferences for Natural Landscapes, Journal of Urban & Development Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 105(1):63-80.
  5. Hammitt, W.E. (1979). Measuring Familiarity for Natural Environments through Visual Images, in Elsner, G.H. & R.C. Smardon [Eds], 217- 226.
  6. Herzog, T.R. (1985). A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for waterscapes, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5:225-241.
  7. Hull, R.B. & Stewart, W.P. (1992). Validity of Photo-based Scenic Beauty Judgements, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12:101-114.
  8. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Brown, T. (1989). Environment Preference: A Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors, Environment and Behavior, 21(5):509 - 530.
  9. Lothian, A. (2000). Landscape Quality Assessment of South Australia. [Dissertation]: Doctorate Philosophy, Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies, University of Adelaide, Australia.
  10. Orians, G. (1986). An Ecological and Evolutionary Approach to Landscape Aesthetics, dalam Penning-Rowsell, E.C. & D. Lowenthal, Landscape Meanings and Values. Allen & Unwin. London.
  11. Ulrich, R.S. (1979). Visual Landscapes and Psychological Well-being, Journal of Landscape Research, 4:17- 23.
  12. Wellman, J.D. & Buhyoff, G.J. (1980). Effects of Regional Familiarity on Landscape Preferences. Journal of Environmental Management, 11:105-110.
  13. Woodcock, D.M. (1982). A Functionalist Approach to Environmental Preference. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
  14. Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L. & Taylor, J.G. (1982). Landscape Perception: Research, Application and Theory, Landscape Planning, 9:1-33.