physiognomic landscape mapping in the netherlands

Landscape Planning, 5 (1978) 45-62 Q Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

45

PHYSIOGNOMIC LANDSCAPE MAPPING IN THE NETHERLANDS

A.A. DE VEER and P.A. BURROUGH

Netherlands Soil Survey Institute, Wugen~ngen (The ~ether~unds~

(Received 6 June 1977)

ABSTRACT

De Veer, A.A. and Burrough, P.A., 1978. Physiognomic landscape mapping in The Netherlands. Landscape Plann., 5: 45-62.

Although physiognomic landscape studies have been used for 10 years by planners in The Netherlands, there have been few comparisons of the various methodologies. Also, publication of the methods in English has been rare. A brief description of the most important visible aspects (physiognomy) of Dutch landscapes is followed by a review of techniques used from 1966-1976 for classifying and mapping landscapes for planning purposes, Three main approaches have been recognized - “compartment”; “breadth of view”; and “grid cell”. The findings of a recent study comparing the results and techniques of different Dutch landscape classification methods are summarized and discussed in the light of the stated requirements of users of landscape data. As no single extant technique satisfies all the users’ requirements, future developments in landscape mapping should adopt a more flexible approach. Recent experience in using computer-assisted mapping methods in soil science and geology suggests that these techniques can be adapted profit- ably to classify and map landscapes from elementary data according to users’ needs.

INTRODUCTION

In The Netherlands, physical planning studies consider many aspects of the environment. Not only are geological, soil, vegetation and ecological data used, but recent planning studies at all levels have required information about the visible aspects or physiognomy of the landscape. During the last 10 years, several methods of physiognomic landscape mapping have been developed, but the resulting landscape maps, produced at various scales and according to different legends, are difficult to compare and evaluate. In December 197 5, the National Physical Planning Agency (Rij ksplanologische Dienst) asked the Physiognomic Landscape Research Division of The Netherlands Soil Survey Institute (Stichting voor Bodemkartering) to study existing Dutch methods of physiognomic landscape survey and to recommend a national approach to landscape inventor.

As the results of the study (De Veer et al., 1977b) and most discussions of Netherl~ds landscape mapping have been published in Dutch, this article

46

presents a review in English of Dutch physiognomic landscape mapping and discusses the results and conclusions of recent investigations. The following section describes the main types of Dutch landscapes to give an idea of the conditions prevailing in this country.

DEVELOPMENT OF DUTCH LANDSCAPES

Dutch landscapes are the product of a long and frequently bitter struggle between people and their environment (Lambert, 1971). Two broad landscape regions can be differentiated.

The flat, northwestern half of the country, lying mainly below sea level, consists of Holocene peat and clay deposits. A dune belt along the North Sea coast protects these areas, but gaps in the dunes and high river-water levels inland call for an extensive system of protecting dykes and drainage. In these areas, the predominant grassland and arable land of the polders contrasts strongly with the dense urban concentrations of the main cities that have developed along the major water courses. As the main parcel boundaries on the polders are ditches rather than hedges, the non-urban landscapes in the northwest are very open.

The southeastern half of the country is formed mainly from Pleistocene glacial ridges and wind-blown coversands. The low to undulating relief and the variations in soil fertility have induced a highly differentiated land-use system that includes mixed farming and heath and forest areas. In earlier times the fields were surrounded by dense hedges to keep cattle and wild animals from the arable land, causing very closed landscape types to develop. The present landscapes of heath and forests owe much to the old agricultural system. Removing sods from the heaths for mixing with farmyard manure and overgrazing by sheep allowed severe erosion of the poor coversand soil. This was first checked by oak plantation around small settlements, and in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by concerted programmes of tree planting, predominantly pines.

The Dutch landscapes are still evolving. The open landscapes in the northwest were extended greatly by the recent IJsselmeer polder reclamations and were also significantly affected by the major floods of 1953 when 1650 km* were inundated (Huson and Verstappen, 196.8).

Many landscape changes have resulted from the pressures of a larger, more mobile and mor’e demanding populatiol~. Owing to increased population after the second World War, much agricultural land has been changed into urban or sub-urban sprawl; increased mobility has required new roads and motorways. Both have reduced considerably the area of nonurban land, which also has been broken into smaller units. In addition, the high-rise developments on the edge of urban areas, particularly in the large open landscapes in the west of the country, have increased the visible impact of urbanization (Nicolai, 1971; Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, 1976).

At present, two major laws govern land use reallocation. The older law

47

concerning reallottment (ruilverkaveling) allows agricultural economic im- provements to be made by revising the patterns of drainage, field size, land tenure and settlement, all of which have profound effects on the visible and ecological qualities of the landscape. The second, the Physical Planning Bill, enacted in 1962 (Brussaard, undated), regulates land use designation at local, regional and national levels. One of the reasons for its introduction was the increasing demands on a~icultur~ lands to serve multiple uses such as nature conservation or recreation and their consequent effects on the landscape. For developments planned under either law, planners are requesting more landscape data to guide their decisions.

LANDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE MAPPING IN RELATION TO PLANNING

The term landscape

The technical meaning of “landschap” in Dutch is broader than that of the English word landscape. Although in everyday speech “l~dschap” means “scenery”, the scientific definition

“a part of the earth’s surface that is composed of a complex of interrelations that originate from the interaction of rocks, water, air, plants, animals and people, and that in its external manifestation forms a discernible whole” (Zonneveld et al., 1975)

embraces much more than the English understanding of “landscape” (e.g., as given by Dunn, 1974). A better translation of “landschap” therefore would be “environment”, a term that includes ecological, genetic and visual aspects together,

According to Weir (1976), the Dutch term “visueel landschap” is comparable to the English understanding of “landscape”. Comparable terms used by the Dutch for “visueel landschap” are “landschapsfysiognomie” or “land- schapsbeeld”. Landschapsfysiognomie involves more, however, than just the structure or arrangement of the visible landscape, it includes a detailed con- sideration of the visible properties of all the features present.

Landscape mapping in The Netherlands and abroad

The aims of Dutch landscape mapping are similar to those of landscape evaluation in other countries. These are to record and classify the landscape in order to identify rare or susceptible sites, to investigate interrelations, to assess the impact of development and to assist suitability evaluation for recreation or other development (cf. Land Use Consultants, 1971). Generally speaking, landscape survey is used as a planning tool.

Although the Dutch have been familiar with landscape evaluation techniques used elsewhere, they now seem to follow more or less their own way. This is partly due to the fact that the Dutch have concentrated on describing landscapes rather than proceeding directly to evaluation without prior

48

mapping (e.g., along the lines of some methods described by Linton, 1968; Jacobs and Way, 1969; Kiemstedt, 1969; Steinitz et al., 1969; Dunn, 1974). A more fundamental reason, however, may be the predominantly flat, agricultural character of the Dutch landscape, which contrasts so strongly with the urbanized land. Differences in landscape character depend strongly on variations in “space”, and space is circumscribed by elements such as lines of trees, dykes or buildings. These elements form dominant criteria for landscape classification. In other countries, differences in relief, outlook and land- form play much greater roles in the visible landscape than in The Netherlanc!s. Consequently, classifications adopted in other countries frequently make more use of ecological or integrated survey techniques than is possible in The Netherlands (e.g., Klink, 1966; Haase, 1967; Steinitz et al., 1969; Leser, 1976). Most Dutch physiognomic landscape mapping methods developed so far stop short of actual aesthetic evaluation and concentrate first on understanding the spatial character and content of the landscapes.

First Dutch methods of landscape mapping

All the Dutch landscape mapping methods discussed in this paper concentrate on describing and classifying the physiognomy. There have been other, national, surveys covering various other aspects of the environment; for example, soil and vegetation relations (Kalkhoven et al., 1976), or maps showing the role of people in landscape building by depicting parcellation, historical sites and land-use patterns (Ministerie van CRM, 1977). Both these surveys have adopted a standard approach to mapping the whole country. However, in physiognomic landscape survey, several techniques have been developed by geographers and landscape architects to meet a wide range of planning problems on different scales.

The first attempt to classify the Dutch landscape in physiognomic terms was a small scale map (1:500 000) called “The landscape of The Netherlands and bordering regions” (Rijksplanologische Dienst, 1966). This map divided the agricultural land into abstract classes defined as complexes of open spaces. Open landscapes were defined as those where both the length and breadth of spaces with unrestricted vision exceeded 1500 m. For half-open landscapes, the critical values were 1500 m and 500 m, respectively; closed landscapes comprised spaces where both dimensions were less than 500 m. One aim of the map was to show that the Rand&ad Holland - the urbanized horseshoe in the west of the country through Utrecht, Amsterdam, Haarlem, Den Haag, Rotterdam and Dordrecht - has an open green heart that should be preserved.

This map was the forerunner of several different approaches to physiognomic landscape mapping (De Veer, 1977). However, after several years there was more diversity than concensus about the meaning of the “visible landscape” and how it should be mapped, so more research was recommended (Rijksplanologische Dienst, 1974). The Netherlands Soil Survey Institute was asked to compare the various Dutch landscape mapping methodologies and

49

to suggest how a national approach to landscape mapping for planning applications could be formula~d. The State Institute for Forestry and Land- scape Planning (“de Dorschkamp”) was asked to prepare a complementary study on how people perceive and appreciate landscapes (Van der Poel, 1976). Coeterier (1977) presents some early results.

CURRENT DUTCH METHODS OF LANDSCAPE MAPPING

All methods belong to one of three main approaches. An exception is the special purpose method of ~a~leveld and De Lange (1972). The three approaches differ most in their recognition of space, but resemble each other more closely in the attention paid to natural or artificial elements in space, such as lines of trees, forests, windmills, dykes and urban areas.

In the first approach, the landscape is considered to be a set of concave compartments that can be characterized by size or shape, type of border and content (compartment methods). The second is based on measurements of the breadth of view and the peripheral elements that may affect it (breadth of view method). The third subdivides the landscape into square grid cells and then classifies them in terms of density and complexity (grid methods). All methods consider masses (e.g., three-dimensional blocks of forest, urban or industrial areas) separately from spaces, except in terms of the visible influence of the mass on the space. In practice, an individual method may not conform wholly to one of these broad classes but may adopt different aspects at various stages.

Table I lists the eight methods of landscape mapping used to date, together with the authors and the main type of approach.

TABLE I

Netherlands methods of landscape mapping

Method Author(s) Type of method

la lb 1C Id 2 3a 3b 4

Schuurmans and Van Schie (1968) Vrij et al. (1976) Smit (1976) De Veer et al. (1977a) Van der Ham et al. (1970) Kerkstra (1974) Koster and De Veer (1972) Maarleveld and De Lange (1972)

-- _-l_-~

(1) Compartment methods

Compartment Compartment Compartment Compartment Breadth of view Grid and breadth of view Grid and compartment Special purpose .- .-... ~_. -__

The compartment approach has been used most frequently. A ““space” is defined as an area of the earth’s surface bordered by line or mass elements higher than the eye level of a standing observer within which all points are

50

mutually visible. By this definition visible spaces are necessarily concave. In practice, this means that contiguous open areas comprising two or more concave units must be separated into discrete spatial entities (Fig.1).

Relief complicates the delineation of compartments. But areas with undula- tions greater than 1.5 m (eyelevel) and less than the height of the surrounding border elements can be classified as spatial complexes (Fig.2). On the upper slopes of hills (rare in The Netherlands) the higher parts of mapped spaces can be annotated “with outlook” (Fig.3).

The first map of Dutch landscapes used a compartmental classification (Rijksplanologische Dienst, 1966). Schuurmans and Van Schie (1968) ex-

(_r-,=

tra~lsition twn compartnlents

l---J ; \‘I\

Fig.1. (Top) Edge concavity influences number of compartments (De Veer et al., 1977a).

Fig.2 (Centre) Complex of spatial types (a, b, c) observable in areas of undulating relief (De Veer et al., 1977a).

Fig.3. (Bottom) Compartment of which higher part offers outlook.

51

tended and refined its principles into Method la, listed in Table I. Their aim was to display differences in the size of space over large parts of the country. In Method la, spaces were classified according to size (length and breadth greater or less than critical values of 500 or 1500 m), relief and land use. Finally, landscape types were translated into recreation suitability.

Vrij (Method lb; 1976) used the compartment concept with critical values for length and breadth of 500 and 1400 m in order to construct a basic pattern of “natural” landscape units. The delineation of these relies more on map and aerial photo interpretation than on recognition of bounding elements in the field. The landscape units formed the basis for several interpretative maps. One of these was based on the degree of visual differentiation within the units estimated from the types of bordering elements, relief and land use. Vrij’s maps have possible applications in local and regional planning.

Smit’s approach (Method lc; 1976), already familiar to British landscape scientists through the review given by Land Use Consultants (1971), is a variation of the compartment model. His criterion for classifying space was based on whether a circle with a diameter of more than 2000 m, between 500 and 2000 m, or less than 500 m could be placed over a map of the terrain without covering lines of trees or built up elements. The spaces were subdivided on the basis of the degree of their enclosure by elements higher than eye level. The units were also characterized in terms of relief, land use, settlement type, parcellation, tree species and presence of surface water. Smit is the only worker to attempt a detailed landscape inventory of the whole of The Netherlands.

De Veer et al. (Method Id; 1977a) have classified compartments according to their area (common class limits 25 and 100 ha). Where compartment edges varied greatly in transparency this attribute was also used for classification, Other attributes used have been relief, land use and structure (parcellation and forest path pattern), and type of trees and building elements. The latter were used for edge classification in space and for content classification in mass. Maps made according to Method Id have been applied in local and regional planning (e.g., extension of built-up areas and reallottment schemes). Fig.6 is an example of a landscape classification map produced by Method Id.

(2) Breadth of view method

The exponents of this method have been Van der Ham et al. (Method 2; 1970). Its main tenet is that the effectiveness with which an element limits a view depends on its distance from the observer. Objects farther than 1200 m away are normally considered not to delimit the space perceived, because the fine details can no longer be discerned by the naked eye. In practice, the critical distance varies from approximately 1000 to 1300 m depending on the colour, contrast and extent of the objects seen, and the meteorological conditions. Objects further than the critical distance are called “extraocular”. A further, more arbitrary, critical distance of 500 m has been used to divide

52

objects lying within 500-1200 m (ocular) from those lying within 500 m (intraocular).

Fig.4 shows how observation points are classified according to the total angles of view to extraocular, ocular and intraocular objects. Approximately four sites per km’ are visited. Then areas with similarly classified points are combined into mapping units (Fig.7). These mapping units may be further subdivided according to the types of elements forming the boundaries of the

3

5 i6 rl <500m r2 500~1200m 73 U200m

Fig.4. Classification of observation points according to Van der Ham et al., 1970 (modified). (1) Superocular - angle of view to r3 (a) > 180”. (2) Extraocular - angle of view to r3 (a) > 60” SP; > 100” MP. (3) Ocular - angle of view to r2 (a) > 60” SP or MP. (4) Intraocular - angle of view within r3 (b) > 300”. (5) Exocular - angle of view to r3 (a) < 60” SP; < 100” MP; and angle of view within

rl (b) < 240”. (6) Inocular -angle of view to r3 (a) < 60” SP; < 100” MP; and angle of view within

rl (b) > 240”. SP = arc of single panorama; MP = summed arcs of multiple panoramas.

53

land lots, the relief (of which the higher elements are considered as space- delimiting elements) and the presence of visible influences of hills, urbanization or main roads. Masses such as woods, urban or industrial areas are mapped separately.

Maps made according to Method 2 have been published in different reports of the National Physical Planning Agency (Rijksplanologische Dienst). Inter- pretation systems have been developed to evaluate landscape as a natural resource and to estimate its suitability for recreation and dwelling.

(3) Grid landscape surveys

In Method 3a (Kerkstra, 19’74), square grid cells of 125 X 125 m were classified according to several principles (e.g., visual complexity, variation in complexity, and seasonal variation). The classification of visual complexity is based on measurements taken mainly from topographic and other maps of the amount of mass, number of buildings and length of different tree-line elements per cell (Fig.8). Cell data are combined for further analysis in- cluding mapping zones of breadth of view. This method has been applied to local planning problems, for example, for suggesting new residential areas.

Koster and De Veer (Method 3b; 1972) have used much larger cells of 1000 X 1000 m. Every landscape element within the cell is assigned a point value depending on its height and extent. The degree of differentiation (i.e., complexity), natural or artificial character and/or spatial type are determined from the elements present in the cell and from the values assigned. The method was used in a study for predicting alterations in landscape physiognomy resulting from industrial activities along the Belgian-Dutch border.

Coeterier and Dijkstra (1976) have also used a grid approach to measure changes in landscape caused by reallottment schemes. Their survey covered two aspects - first, a measure of the changes in hedgerow density, and second, public reaction to the landscape alterations.

(4) Special purpose method

The pragmatic method used by Maarleveld and De Lange (Method 4; 1972) in their study of the flood plains of the Rhine, Waal, Maas and IJssel does not readily fit into one of the above classes. Their major landscape units were bounded by the stream, the parallel winter dyke and transverse features such as main roads and narrow floodplain necks between river and dyke. These units were then described according to relief, land use and density of trees and hedges. For each river a landscape evaluation in four classes was made in order to inform planning authorities about conservation needs and restric- tions for development.

54

THE SUITABILITY OF DUTCH PHYSIOGNOMIC LANDSCAPE MAPPING TECH- NIQUES FOR A NATIONAL LANDSCAPE MAPPING PROGRAMME

The Netherlands Soil Survey Institute compared the methods of landscape mapping described above in order to find out if one method, or a combina- tion, could provide the basis for a national approach to landscape inventory. It was conceived that a national approach to landscape inventory should be able to provide information useful for all levels of planning from State to Local.

The investigation fell into two parts. The first was a comparison of the mapping methods in terms of technical quality and information content. The second was a survey of potential users of physiognomic landscape data at all planning levels, both public and private, to determine the users’ requirements. Foreign methods were not considered, because most of them do not concentrate on landscape physiognomy (see ‘Landscape mapping in The Netherlands and abroad’, above).

Comparison of the mapping methods

The eight methods were analysed as closely as possible by examining all the available literature and by consulting the authors. In order to compare

Fig.5. Topography of part of the test area near Rhenen (Provinces of Utrecht and Gelder- land, The Netherlands). Scale 1:50 000. The area displayed in Figs 6, 7 and 8 is marked.

55

the methods in the field, a suitable test area of 60 km* was chosen near the town of Rhenen in the Provinces of Gelderland and Utrecht (Fig.5). This area was chosen for its wide variety of landscapes which include low forested hills, large open areas, the flood plain of the Neder Rijn, smaller, complex field patterns and urban influences.

All except Method la were mapped at a common field scale of 1:25 000; the map for Method la was taken from the published map of the Geldersche Vallei that covers the study area. Methods lb, lc, Id and 2 were mapped over the whole study area, but Methods 3a and b (grid mapping techniques), were mapped only over the 6 km* tract shown in Fig.5. Method 4 was con- fined to the flood plain of the Rhine. Figs 6, 7 and 8 show details of Methods Id, 2 and 3a over the 6 km2 strip; all maps are reproduced in full in De Veer et al. (197713).

The eight methods were compared on 19 points ranging from the number of areas already mapped according to the method, the survey scales employed, to the costs and procedures of data gathering, the flexibility of the approach, the legibility of the maps and their declared application possibilities. Table II presents some of these data concerning the extent of use, map scales, mode of presentation and costs. Several methods, lc, Id, 2 and 4 presented the landscape typology in a single map; others, notably Methods lb and 3a, used several maps to present all their classifications. A wide range of scales has been used, both between and within methods. Survey costs increased with

Fig.6. Landscape classification according to Method Id (De Veer et al.. 1977a).

Spaces edge transparency Size of space

Large (>lOO ha)

Medium

(25-100 ha) Small

(< 25 ha)

Open-edge > 7 5% transparent 1 4 7

Half-open-edge 25-75% transparent 2* 5 8

Enclosed-edge < 25% transparent 3* 6* 9

Associations of space-mass Mass

Mass: transparent 10* Transparent 13* Mass: transparent and non-transparent 11 Transparent and non-transparent 14 Mass: non-transparent 12 Non-transparent 15*

*Does not occur in this area.

56

Fig.7. Landscape classification according to Method 2 (Van der Ham et al., 1970).

Space

Map code

2

3

4

5

6

Classification of observation points

Very wide view

Wide view

View bounded, but with far outlooks

Bounded view

Closely bounded view but with far outlooks

Closely bounded view

Summed angles of objects in viewing-circle (degrees)

1200 m 500-l 200 m 500 m Extraocular Ocular Intraocular

>180 <180 <180

>60 SBf or 100-180

<180 <180

5-60 SBf 5-100

.240 <120

<5 >300 <60

5-60 SBf 5-100

<120 >240

<5 <60 >300

Other landscape types: 7 = periphery area; 8 = forest.

fSB = angle of view within a single arc. *Does not occur in this area.

Fig.8. Landscape classification according to Method 3a (Kerkstra, 1974). Visual complexity is ranked from 1 (small) to 5 (large). (Type 5 does not occur in this area.)

map scale, the ratio of field to office work and with the amount of data collected. Method Id, which requires a complete field survey of the landscape elements, was most expensive while the map produced for the whole country by analysis of topographic and other maps (Method lc) was cheapest.

Table III compares the methods in terms of the dominant landscape attributes used for classification. Although Method lc appears to have the most comprehensive cover of concrete landscape attributes, its complex and

TA

BL

E

II

Com

pari

son

of

met

hod

s (m

ain

dat

a)

Met

hod

A

uth

or(s

) N

o.

of

area

s m

appe

d

Are

a m

appe

d in

pu

blis

hed

st

udi

es

(km

’)

Sca

les

No.

of

(2

5 =

1:2

5 00

0 m

aps

etc.

) pe

r ar

ea

la

lb

lc

Id

2 3a

3b

4

-_-.

Seh

uu

rman

s an

d V

an S

chie

(19

63)

Vri

j et

al.

(197

6)

Sm

it (

1976

) D

e V

eer

et a

l. (1

977a

) V

an d

er H

am e

t al

. (1

970)

K

erk

stra

(19

74)

Kos

ter

and

De

Vee

r (1

972)

M

aarl

evel

d an

d D

e L

ange

(19

72)

>2

1260

10

0-25

0 5

? 4

3850

25

-250

G

lO

41-5

2 1

37 0

00

600

1 30

-41

>16

18

26

5-10

0 1

70-2

04

13

3211

25

-250

>

I 77

-95

1 10

0 60

5

120

5 12

70

25-1

00

2 68

-l

02

1 38

0 50

1

51

Cos

ts p

er k

m*

(Dfl

f*

--~

~

~

---.

- -

*s 1

= D

fl4.

20.

58

TABLE III

Dominant landscape attributes present in map legends ---__~ ~ ~_

Method Concrete attributes Abstract attributes

Land Tree Buildings Water Relief structure Complexity, space USC! vegetation urbanization diversity (-mass)

la ++ 0 + 0 0 ++ lb ++ + + + + ++ 0 In ++ + + ++ c+ + + Id ++ ++ c 0 c + 0 ++ 2 0 0 + + + - ++ 3a - - - ++ ++ 3b 0 0 0 0 D - f ++ 4 ++ 0 - + +* - f

. -~-

++ = extensively used; + = partly used; 0 = scarcely used: -- = unused.

cumbersome legend requires modification for use at larger scales. Method 2 is strong on the perception of space, but pays little attention to the contents of a space or the nature of the boundaries. Method 4 needs considerable development to extend it from the river flood plains to the rest of the country; Method la is too generalized. The grid approach of Methods 3a and 3b precludes the delimitation of landscape units along “natural” boundaries; moreover, field appraisal plays a minor role as abstract concepts receive most attention in the map legends. Method lb gives much information, but relies heavily on the map makers’ assessment of maps and aerial photos. Method Id requires comprehensive field survey and pays more attention than the others to the problems of mapping forested land, but it suffers from a com- plicated legend.

Suruey of users requirements

Fifty-four potential users of landscape data were solicited for information on their use and need for these data. They ranged from State services and ministries, provincial services, provincial landscape consultants to private landscape consultants and other private institutes (e.g., the tourist board). Forty-six replied (85% response). Most respondents already used landscape data collected in various ways, and in 75% of the cases the landscape data were displayed in maps. The most common -map scale was 1:25 000, but 1 :lO 000 and 1:50 000 were also used frequently. More than two-thirds of respondents were willing to use systematic landscape maps prepared according to a nationaI system; among the State and Provincial users nine out of ten expressed strong interest. Private and provincial consultants showed least interest in the proposals for a national system; two-thirds of them showed a positive response. Apart from commercial reasons, there may be a fear that a national survey would stifle an individual approach to landscape evaluation and pay insufficient attention to local landscape details.

59

Users were asked about the application and data content of landscape maps. Five categories of application scored high: - vulnerability designation (e.g., visibility of a new building, road or power

line); - suitability designation (e.g., for different recreation activities); - public landscape preferences (e.g., as determined by a questionnaire using

colour photographs of selected landscapes); - landscape evaluation (using parameters such as diversity, rareness, or

replacement possibilities) for conservation planning; - landscape design (the creation of new or modification of old landscapes). Only landscape management scored low.

Many users stated that data about the distribution of single landscape elements (e.g., the location of all rows of transparent, high poplars) or specific combinations of elements (concrete or abstract typologies) were often required, as well as information on different visible influences such as industrial or suburban areas. However, landscape evaluations for specific purposes were not necessarily required to be displayed on maps but could be presented in tabular form.

The main conclusion from the questionnaire was that users’ demands for physio~omi~ landscape mapping vary enormously, both in terms of mapping scale and map content.

DISCUSSION

The survey of users of landscape information made clear that there is a strong demand for a national approach to mapping landscape information in The Netherlands. It is obvious that the variety in users’ demands exceeds the capabilities of any single mapping system studied. Moreover, it appears that even in a country as small as The Netherlands there is sufficient diversity in landscapes and in research techniques to warrant the use of different approaches to landscape classification. Not only are different classification approaches needed, but data must be presented at a wide range of scales suitable for immediate application. The Netherlands Soil Survey Institute concluded that none of the landscape mapping techniques examined was completely suitable for the foundation of a national approach to landscape mapping.

On the other hand, many of the methods start from basically similar data (landscape elements), whether derived from field survey or maps and aerial photographs. There could be considerable advantages if a single survey could be designed to supply data for several landscape classification methods, which could then be mapped at different scales. This would save time and money in areas where planners requested surveys according to several techniques. It would also allow greater flexibility of interpretation.

The focus of the recommendations, therefore, swung away from a choice of a single, most suitable classification technique, towards a survey of ele-

60

merits and data handling methodolo~ that would allow the greatest flexibility to meet users’ needs. Clearly, conventional mapping procedures would be too cumbersome, so the Netherlands Soil Survey Institute recommended that investigations were made into suitable computer-assisted data-storage, classification and cartographic techniques. There is now a wide body of experience in the use of computers for geographical data (e.g., Duffield and Coppock, 1975; Margerison, 1976; Tomlinson et al., 1976). Also, The Netherlands Soil Survey Institute has itself developed considerable experience in the automated handling of soil and geological data. With further research, this experience could be developed to meet the needs of a physiognomic landscape mapping problem.

In November 1976, the results of the study were accepted. To prepare the way for a flexible physiognomic landscape mapping programme, it was recommended that a list of landscape elements necessary for most mapping methods should be compiled. Further research was recommended for methods of data collection and the most appropriate computer graphics facilities.

The Netl~erlailds Soil Survey Institute Physio~omic Research Division has now begun a research programme into the data collection, storage and manipulation techniques necessary for the support of a flexible, computer- based approach to landscape mapping. This program includes the active participation of user groups to advise on the most important aspects of data collection and presentation.

The initial trials will take place in areas where planning problems exist. Early results show that it is possible easily to collect sufficient landscape element data to satisfy the needs of more than one existing landscape ciassifi- cation method. Maps of several classifications can be produced from the same data base. The maps can easily be plotted at any scale desired and overlaid on other maps showing geology or landuse.

The first experiments show that it is possible to model the visible aspects of a landscape before and after development, and to evaluate both stages in terms of different classification criteria. These experiments will be reported in more detail later: for the present, it is clear that the flexibility of a computer-assisted approach can provide a unified methodology capable of serving the variety of demands and applications for landscape data in The Netherlands. Whether the surveys will be extended outside areas of immediate planning interest or not depends largely on a wider acceptance of this type of mapping.

REFERENCES

Brussaard, W., undated. The rules of physical planning in The Netherlands. Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, The Hague, 36 pp.

Coeterier, J.F., 1977. De betekenis van de omgeving IV. Literatuurstudie naar de waar- neming en de waardering van landschappen. Rijksinstituut voor Onderzoek in de Bos- en landschapsbouw ‘Lde Dorschkamp”, Wageningen, 102 pp.

Coeterier, J.F. and Dijkstra, H., 1976. Research on the visual perception and appreciation 01, and visual changes in a hedgerow landscape. Landscape Plann., 3: 421-452.

61

De Veer, A.A., 1977. De ruimtelijke classificatie van het Nederlandse landschap. KNAG Geogr. Tijdschr., X1(2): 98-109 (in Dutch with English summary).

De Veer, A.A., Buitenhuis, A. and Van het Loo, H., 1977a. Landschapsfysiognomie. Par. 2.8, 3.2.1.10, 3.2.2.9 and 5.4. In: S.M. Ten Houte de Lange (Editor), Rapport van het Veluwe-onderzoek. Pudoc, Wageningen (in Dutch with English summary).

De Veer, A.A., Buitenhuis, A. and Van het Loo, H., 1977b. Vergelijking van Nederlandse methoden van landschapsbeeldkartering en hun toepassingsmogelijkheden. Stichting voor Bodemkartering/Centrum voor Landbouwpublikaties en Landbouwdocumentatie, Wageningen, 65 pp. (in Dutch with English abstract).

Duffield, B.S. and Coppock, J.T., 1975. The delineation of recreational landscapes: the role of a computer-based information system. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 66: 141-148.

Dunn, M.C., 1974. Landscape evaluation techniques - an appraisal and review of the literature. Working Paper 4, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, Birmingham, 68 pp.

Haase, G., 1967. Zur Methodik grossmassstabiger landschaftsiikologischer und naturraum- licher Erkundung. In: H. Richter (Editor), Probleme der landschaftsokologischen Erkun-

dung und naturraumlichen Gliederung. Geogr. Ges. D.D.R., Leipzig, 35-128. Huson, J.J. and Verstappen, H.Th., 1968. The changing landscape of The Netherlands.

KNAG Geogr. Tijdschr. II, 5: 506-521. Jacobs, P. and Way, D., 1969. Visual analysis of landscape development. Harvard

University, Department of Landscape Architecture, Cambridge, Mass., 53 pp. Kalkhoven, J.T.R., Stumpel, A.H.P. and Stumpel-Rienks, S.E., 1976. Landelijke milieu-

kartering, een beeld van de natuur in Nederland. Rijksinstituut voor Natuurbeheerl Rijksplanologische Dienst, Den Haag, 141 pp. + 4 appendices (in Dutch with summary in

English, German and French). Kerkstra, K., 1974. De visuele aspekten. In: Werkgroep Helmond, Landschapsonderzoek

Helmond. Afdeling Landschapsarchitectuur Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen, 178 PP. (in Dutch with English summary).

Kiemstedt, H., 1969. Eine Bewertungsziffer fiir die Erholungseignung der Landschaft. Neues Arch. Niedersachsen, Gottingen, 18( 1): 15-19.

Klink, H.J,, 1966. Naturraumliche Gliederung des Ith-Hils-Berglandes. Forschungen zur Deutschen Landeskunde, Band 159, Bad Godesberg, 257 pp.

Koster, E.A. and De Veer, A.A., 1972. Een analyse van het landschap ten noorden van Amsterdam aan de hand van de topografische kaart. Stedebouw en Volkshuisvesting, 53: 331-355 (in Dutch with English summary).

Lambert, A.M., 1971. The Making of the Dutch Landscape. Seminar Press, London, 412 pp. Land Use Consultants, 1971. A planning classification of Scottish Landscape Resources.

Countryside Commission for Scotland, Occasional Paper No. 1, Perth, 110 Pp. Leser, H., 1976. Landschaftsiikologie. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, 432 pp. Linton, D.L., 1968. The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scott. Geogr. Mag.,

84: 219-235. Maarleveld, G.C. and De Lange, G.W., 1972. Een globale geomorfologische en landschap-

pelijke kartering en waardering van de uiterwaarden van de Nederlandse grote rivieren. Landbouwkd. Tijdschr., 84(8): 273-288 (in Dutch with English abstract).

Margerison, T.A., 1976. Computers and the renaissance of cartography. Natural Environmental Research Council/Experimental Cartography Unit. HMSO, London,

20 PP. Ministerie van CRM, 1977. Cultuurwaardenkaart van Nederland, samengesteld door de

Bolwerkgroep onder auspicien van de Natuurbeschermingsraad. Utrecht. Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning, 1976. Summary of the Report on Urbaniza-

tion in The Netherlands. The Hague, 14 pp. Nicolai, d., 1971. De visuele invloed van woonplaatsen op open ruimten. Doctoral thesis,

Technische Hogeschool, Delft, 232 pp. (in Dutch with English summary). Rijksplanologische Dienst, 1966. Tweede nota over de ruimtelijke ordening in Nederland.

Den Haag, 199 pp.

62

RijkspIanologische Dienst, 1974. Ori~nteringsnota ruimtelijke ordening. Den Haag, 124 pp. Sehuurmans, J. and Van Schie, J., 1968. Landschapstypen. Tijdschr. K. Ned. Heide-

maatsch., 79: 101-110. Smit, H.F., 1976. Uitgewerkte schets voor een middelsehalige classificatie van Nederlandse

landschappen. Zwolle, Van Hille Gaerthestraat 42. 65 pp. (stencil). Steinitz, C., Murray, T., Sinton, D. and Way, D., 1969. A comparative study of resource

analysis methods. Harvard University, Department of Landscape Architecture, Cam- bridge, Mass., 382 pp.

Tomlinson, R.F., Calkins, H.W. and Marble, D.F., 1976. Computer handling of geographical data. UNESCO Natural Resources Research XIII, Paris, 214 pp.

Van der Ham, R.J.I.M., Schut, G.F.E. and Iding, J.A.M.E., 1970. Een voorstel voor een nieuwe landsehaptypologie naar visuele kenmerken. Stedebouw en Volkshuisvesting, 51: 421-438.

Van der Poel, A.J., 1976. From landscape care to research in landscape planning. Land- scape Plann., 3: 363-370.

Vrij, F.V., 1976. Landschapsbeleving en ruimtelijke planning. Provinciale Planologische Dienst Noord-Brabant, ‘s Hertogenbosch, 70 pp.

Weir, M.J.C., 1976. Landscape evaluation in Great Britain - a short review. Meded. Werk- gemeenschap Landschapsecologi~h Onderzoek, 3: 15-20.

Zonnevetd, IS., Tjallingii, S.P. and Meester-Broertjes, H.A. (Editors), 1975. Landschapstaal. Meded. Werkgemeenschap Landschapsecologisch Onderzoek, extra nummer, 38 pp.

physiognomic landscape mapping in the netherlands

Documents