A comparative study on the performance of three color schemes in landscape preference tests

    Tao Luo Affiliation
    ; Min Xu Affiliation
    ; Zhifang Wang Affiliation
    ; Zhaowu Yu Affiliation


The photo color is recognised as one of the most significant but not fully understood factors influencing the results of landscape preference research. In this context, this paper compares the performances of three photo color schemes (original, rendered and white-black color schemes) frequently used in landscape preference tests to figure out which is the more suitable alternative to an original color photo. Statistics analysis results demonstrated that: 1) In general, the photo color schemes particularly the white-black scheme will significantly affect the results of landscape preference test. Compared with white-black, color in any other forms can increase the degree of preference for a given landscape. 2) The photo color scheme plays a decisive role in respondent’s judgment on some landscape attributes. Original color, White-black color and Rendered color schemes are better suited in landscape preference tests that highlight the effect of color, characteristic and naturalness respectively. 3) When the Rendered color scheme is used as an alternative to the Original color scheme, it has a much better performance than the White-black Color Scheme and is therefore recommended as the prior alternative color scheme to the Original color scheme under most scenarios in landscape preference research. Based on these results, it is suggested that color should be more carefully treated according to its different performance in landscape cognition research.

Keyword : public test, landscape aesthetics, photo visualization, rendered photos, landscape management

How to Cite
Luo, T., Xu, M., Wang, Z., & Yu, Z. (2019). A comparative study on the performance of three color schemes in landscape preference tests. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 27(2), 114-125.
Published in Issue
Jun 5, 2019
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Acar, C., Kurdoglu, B. C., Kurdoglu, O., & Acar, H. (2006). Public preferences for visual quality and management in the Kackar Mountains National Park (Turkey). International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 13(6), 499-512.

Atik, M., Isikli, R. C., & Ortacesme, V. (2016). Clusters of landscape characters as a way of communication in characterisation: A study from side, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management, 182, 385-396.

Chesnokova, O., & Purves, R. S. (2018). From image descriptions to perceived sounds and sources in landscape: Analyzing aural experience through text. Applied Geography, 93, 103-111.

Deussen, O. (2003). A framework for geometry generation and rendering of plants with applications in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(1-2), 105-113.

Dupont, L., Antrop, M., & Van Eetvelde, V. (2015). Does landscape related expertise influence the visual perception of landscape photographs? Implications for participatory landscape planning and management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 141, 68-77.

Fechner, G. T. (1876). Vorschule der aesthetik. Germany: Breitkopf & Härtel.

Garcı́a, L., Hernández, J., & Ayuga, F. (2003). Analysis of the exterior colour of agroindustrial buildings: a computer aided approach to landscape integration. Journal of Environmental Management, 69(1), 93-104.

Gong, R., Wang, Q., Hai, Y., & Shao, X. (2017). Investigation on factors to influence color emotion and color preference responses. Optik − International Journal for Light and Electron Optics, 136, 71-78.

Hayden, L., Cadenasso, M. L., Haver, D., & Oki, L. R. (2015). Residential landscape aesthetics and water conservation best management practices: Homeowner perceptions and preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 144, 1-9.

Hu, H., Ge, Y., & Hou, D. (2014). Using web crawler technology for geo-events analysis: a case study of the Huangyan Island incident. Sustainability, 6(4), 1896-1912.

Kalivoda, O., Vojar, J., Skrivanova, Z., & Zahradnik, D. (2014). Consensus in landscape preference judgments: the effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondentsʼ characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 36-44.

López-Martínez, F. (2017). Visual landscape preferences in Mediterranean areas and their socio-demographic influences. Ecological Engineering, 104, 205-215.

Lange, E., Hehl-Lange, S., & Brewer, M. J. (2008). Scenario-visualization for the assessment of perceived green space qualities at the urban-rural fringe. Journal of Environmental Management, 89(3), 245-256.

Lee, K. C., & Son, Y. H. (2017). Exploring landscape perceptions of Bukhansan National Park according to the degree of visitorsʼ experience. Sustainability, 9(8), 1306.

Lengen, C. (2015). The effects of colours, shapes and boundaries of landscapes on perception, emotion and mentalising processes promoting health and well-being. Health & Place, 35, 166-177.

Lindquist, M., Lange, E., & Kang, J. (2016). From 3D landscape visualization to environmental simulation: The contribution of sound to the perception of virtual environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 216-231.

Mahdieh, P., & Mustafa Kamal, M. S. (2014). Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(1), 145-151.

Nardecchia, F., Barbalace, M., Bisegna, F., Burattini, C., Gugliermetti, F., Vollaro, A., & Golasi, I. (2015). A method to evaluate the stimulation of a real world field of view by means of a spectroradiometric analysis. Sustainability, 7, 14964-14981.

Natori, Y., & Chenoweth, R. (2008). Differences in rural landscape perceptions and preferences between farmers and naturalists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 250-267.

Nejati, A., Rodiek, S., & Shepley, M. (2016). Using visual simulation to evaluate restorative qualities of access to nature in hospital staff break areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 132-138.

Ode, A., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 375-383.

Orenstein, D. E., Zimroni, H., & Eizenberg, E. (2015). The immersive visualization theater: A new tool for ecosystem assessment and landscape planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 54, 347-355.

Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review Psychology, 64, 77-107.

Polat, A. T., & Akay, A. (2015). Relationships between the visual preferences of urban recreation area users and various landscape design elements. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(3), 573-582.

Schloss, K. B., & Palmer, S. E. (2017). An ecological framework for temporal and individual differences in color preferences. Vision Research, 141, 95-108.

Soini, K., Vaarala, H., & Pouta, E. (2012). Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 124-134.

Sowińska-Świerkosz, B. (2016). Index of Landscape Disharmony (ILDH) as a new tool combining the aesthetic and ecological approach to landscape assessment. Ecological Indicators, 70, 166-180.

Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71(3), 907-913.

Surová, D., & Pinto-Correia, T. (2016). A landscape menu to please them all: Relating users’ preferences to land cover classes in the Mediterranean region of Alentejo, Southern Portugal. Land Use Policy, 54, 355-365.

Svobodova, K., Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K., & Vojar, J. (2014). Does the composition of landscape photographs affect visual preferences? The rule of the Golden Section and the position of the horizon. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 143152.

Tieskens, K. F., Van Zanten, B. T., Schulp, C. J. E., & Verburg, P. H. (2018). Aesthetic appreciation of the cultural landscape through social media: An analysis of revealed preference in the Dutch river landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 128-137.

Verbrugge, L., & van Den Born, R. (2018). The role of place attachment in public perceptions of a re-landscaping intervention in the river Waal (The Netherlands). Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 241-250.

Wang, R., & Zhao, J. (2017). Demographic groups’ differences in visual preference for vegetated landscapes in urban green space. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 350-357.

Wang, R., Zhao, J., & Liu, Z. (2016). Consensus in visual preferences: The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 210-217.

Yamashita, S. (2002). Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: use of Photo-Projective Method to compare child and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japanese river environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62(1), 3-17.

Zhang, H., Chen, B., Sun, Z., & Bao, Z. (2013). Landscape perception and recreation needs in urban green space in Fuyang, Hangzhou, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12(1), 44-52.