Res. Agr. Eng., 2004, 50(4):140-151 | DOI: 10.17221/4941-RAE

Evaluation of cattle and sheep buildings with their surroundings using 'visual quality assessment' technique

T. Taşkin, A. Kaplan, A. Önenç, C. C Hepcan
1 Ege University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Izmir, Turkey
2 Ege University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Landscape Architecture, Izmir, Turkey

This study was conducted to assess visual quality of cattle and sheep housings with their surroundings across the seven districts of İzmir province, located in western side of Turkey. A total of 58 animal farms consisting of 31 cattle and 27 sheep farms were investigated. After watching the videos of all animal housings with their environs, each sample lasts for approximately 60 seconds, the 250 photos derived from the video scenes were evaluated by an expert group of 30 respondents in one panel. The respondents were asked to rate visual quality of each photo and its features on a five-point scale in order of district and farm type (cattle or sheep). The results showed that efficiently constructed and managed animal farm buildings in compliance with their surroundings were rated higher than the ones that are built on an ad hoc basis as well as irrelevant to their environs. Visual quality scores increased directly with natural landscape features (topographic attributes such as hill and plain, the presence of plant cover) and decreased with the mostly presence of man-made elements (transformer and electric lines, road, water channel, settlement) besides unplanned layout of the buildings and its facilities, proximity to highway and urban/rural settlements, worse manure management.

Keywords: animal building; visual quality assessment; cattle and sheep farms; agricultural landscape

Published: December 31, 2004  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Taşkin T, Kaplan A, Önenç A, Hepcan CC. Evaluation of cattle and sheep buildings with their surroundings using 'visual quality assessment' technique. Res. Agr. Eng. 2004;50(4):140-151. doi: 10.17221/4941-RAE.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ARRIAZA M., CAÑAS-ORTEGA J.F., CAÑAS-MADUEÑO J.A., RUIZ-AVILES P., 2004. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landscape Urban Plann., 69: 115- 125. Go to original source...
    2. BALLING J.D., FALK J.H., 1982. Development of visual preference for natural environments. Envir. Behav., 14: 5-28. Go to original source...
    3. DANIELS T., 1999. When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe. Washington, D.C., Island Press: 377.
    4. FRIEDBERGER M., 2000. The rural-urban fringe in the late twentieth century. Agric. Hist., 74: 502-514. Go to original source...
    5. HAMMOND S.V., 2002. Can city and farm coexist? The agricultural buffer experience in California. Great Valley Center Agricultural Transactions Program, University of California Cooperative Extension Program. Modesto, CA. Available study.pdf.
    6. HENDRIKS K., STOBBELAAR D.J., VAN MANSVELT J.D., 2000. The appearance of agriculture: An assessment of the quality of landscape of both organic and conventional horticultural farms in West Friesland. Agric. Ecosyst Envir., 77: 157-175. Go to original source...
    7. HERZOG T.R., HERBERT E.J., KAPLAN R., CROOKS C.L., 2000. Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Envir. Behav., 32: 323-346. Go to original source...
    8. HULL R.B., STEWART W.P., 1995. The landscape encountered and experienced while hiking. Envir. Behav., 27: 404-426. Go to original source...
    9. JACOB H.P., VAN DER VAART, 2003. Towards a new rural landscape: consequences of non-agricultural re-use of redundant farm buildings in Friesland, Landscape Urban Plann (article in press). In: KALTENBORN B.P., BJERKE T., 2002. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape Urban Plann., 59: 1-11. Go to original source...
    10. KAPLAN R., KAPLAN S., RYAN R.L., 1998. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature. Washington, D.C., Island Press: 239.
    11. KENDALL P., 1993. It isn't always green acres when urban and rural meet. Chicago Tribune, June 24, 1993, Section 1: 1-2.
    12. REAL E., ARCE C., SABUCEDO J.M., 2000. Classification of landscapes using quantitative and categorical data, and prediction of their scenic beauty in north-western Spain. J. Envir. Psychol., 20: 355-373. Go to original source...
    13. RONCHI B., NARDONE A., 2003. Contribution of organic farming to increase sustainability of Mediterranean small ruminants livestock systems. Lives. Prod. Sci., 80: 17-31. Go to original source...
    14. RØNNINGEN K., 2002. Multifunctionality: Applying the OECD Framework, A Review of the Literature on Environmental Commodities and Rural Viability in Norway. OECD, Directorate for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Paris.
    15. OHTA H., 2001. A phenomenological approach to natural landscape cognition. J. Envir. Psychol., 21: 387-403. and environmental aesthetics: conundrum, canärd or curiosity. Landscape Urban Plann., 32: 227-244. Go to original source...
    16. SIS, 2002. State Institute of Statistics. Statistical Yearbooks. Published by the State Institute of Statistics, Ankara, Turkey.
    17. SMARDON R.C., PALMER J.F., FELLEMAN J.P., 1986. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. New York, John Wiley and Sons: 374.
    18. SPSS (1999): SPSS 10 for Windows. SPSS Inc.
    19. STRUMSE E., 1994. Perceptual dimensions in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. J. Envir. Psychol., 14: 281-292. Go to original source...
    20. SULLIVAN W.C., ANDERSON O.M., LOVELL S.T., 2004. Agricultural buffers at the rural-urban fringe: an examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the Midwestern United States. Landscape Urban Plann., 69: 299-313. Go to original source...
    21. The Landscape Institute, Institute of Environmental Management Assessment (2002). Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. London, Spon Press: 166. Go to original source...
    22. ULRICH S.R., SIMONS R.F., LOSITO B.D., FIORITO E., MILES M.A., ZELSON M., 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Envir. Psychol., 11: 201-230. Go to original source...
    23. VINING J., STEVENS J.J., 1986. The assessment of landscape quality: Major methodological considerations. In: SMARDON R.C., PALMER J.F., FELLEMAN J.P. (eds.), Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. New York, John Wiley and Sons: 167-186.
    24. VAN DER BERG A.E., VLEK C.A.J., COETERIER J.F., 1998. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: A multilevel approach. J. Envir. Psychol., 18: 141-157. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content