The role of plants on the impact of cultural and historical monuments

Galev, Emil and Gurkova, Maria and Galev, Nikolay (2016): The role of plants on the impact of cultural and historical monuments. Published in: Junior Scientific Researcher , Vol. 2, No. 1 (May 2016): pp. 1-15.

Abstract

Visual impact of cultural and historical monuments determined by surrounding plants is the focus of discussion in the paper. Their influence on passengers and onlookers sidelong roadways and trails is described in detail. A great number of practical examples have been examined with the purpose of drawing some general conclusions from this problem to the advantage of landscape design practice. The result of the analysis shows a considerable role of vegetation in visual impact of monuments over the observers. Using color photographs and observations from a number of different positions for a lot of monuments and memorials the survey concludes that from the standpoint of aesthetic value or attractiveness the vegetation often plays a leading role. It is not a detailed study of compositional principles for the formation of spaces around the monuments, but demonstrates the complexity of the problem and gave some results in addition to the theoretical foundations in this respect. Although the scenic beauty metrics are quite debatable and controversial case it is hoped that the conclusions of this paper will facilitate needed discussion on vegetation appropriateness and usefulness in monument's landscape design.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: monuments, memorials, visual impact, vegetation, aesthetics, tourists
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q0 - General > Q00 - General

References

1.TOTH, A., (2016), Sacral Monuments and Trees as Heritage in the Landscape, Small Sacral Architecture & Memorial Trees as Symbolic Landscape Features, In: The 5th LE:NOTRE Landscape Forum, Landscape: From Natural to Cultural from; 16th – 20th March 2016 in Pafos, Cyprus

2. BRETON L., (1981), Arboretum Allard: arbres et arbustes a l’automne. Jardins de France No 6–7, 240 p.

3. BRIGGS D. J., FRANCE J., (1980), Landscape Evaluation: A comparative study. Journal of Environmental Management 10: 263–275

4. BRIVOT F., (1982), L’ombre des grands arbress. L’ami des jardins et de la maison No 685

5. BROWN T., DANIEL T., (1986), Predicting Scenic Beauty of Timberstands. Forest Science No 2: 471–487

6. BUHYOFF G., (1986), Prediction of Scenic quality for Southern Pine Stands. Forest Science No 3: 769–778

7. BULEV T., (1977), Criteria for evaluation of aesthetic environment. Sofia

8. COLVIN B., (1973), Land and Landscape. Ed. J. Murray, p. 414

9. DANIEL T. C., VINING J., (1983), Methodological Issues in the Assessment of Landscape Quality. In Behaviour and the Natural Environment (eds. Altman I. and Wohwill J.), Chapter 2: 39–83, Plenum Press

10. ERINGIS K., BUDRYUNAS A., (1975), Essence and methodology of ecological and aesthetic landscape research. In: Prince. Ecology and aesthetics of the landscape. Vilnius, Publisher “Thought”

11. FORESTRY COMMISION, (1994), Forest Landscape Design – Guidelines. HMSO, London

12. HELLIWELL R., (1984), Growing a picture. GC HTJ, 195, No 9, p. 19

13. KABATLIYSKA Z., (2007), Flowers in the Bulgarian monasteries – interior and exterior, traditions and future. “Vita nova’ Work Shop – Klissoura monastery, 10–21 July, 2007. Academia Danubiana, Vol. 5: 10–13

14. KLUCKHOHN C., MURRAY H., (1967), Personality and person perception across cultures. In A History of Psychology in Autobiography, Vol. V, edited by Edwin G. Boring and Gardner Lindzey, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, p. 127

15. KOUNEVA TZ., KABATLIYSKA Z., PETROVA R., JANCHEVA G., (2009), Annual wild flowering (Moorish) meadows. Avangard Prima, Sofia, ISBN: 978954323326-7, 84 p.

16. KURBATOV Y., (1988), Architectural forms and natural landscapes – composite connection., Leningrad, University of Leningrad Publisher. (in Russian).

17. LEWIS C., (1973), The barks of Trees. American Forests 79, No 11: 14–17

18. PETROV P., VELCHEV A., (1980), Principles and methods for assessing environmental systems for recreation. In: Geography and natural resources, Novosibirsk, Siberian Branch of USSR, No 2

19. QUELLET J., (1982), Les parfums des arleres. Foret conservation 49, No 6: 12– 15

20. SEUNG-BIN IM., (1984), Visual preferences in enclosed urban places – an exploration of a scientific approach to environmental design. Environment and Behavior 16, No 2: 235–262

21. SHAFER E.L., HAMILTON J.F., SCHMIDT E.A., (1969), Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research 1: 1–19

22. SHAFER E.L., BRUSH R.O., (1977), How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Planning, 4: 237–256

23. SORENSEN PH., (1982), Jouez sur les ecorces. L’ami des jardins et de la maison No 689: 58–63

24. STOYCHEVA M., TZOLOVA G., (2001), About some dynamic accents and their visual and aesthetic perception in nature landscape. Jubilee book, University of forestry

25. STOYCHEVA M., KABATLIYSKA Z., (2002), Influence of floral compositions upon human psychological condition. ECLAS, Budapest conference

26. STOYCHEVA, M., (2016), A Spatial Method in the Park Design, PhD thesis, University of Forestry, Sofia, Bulgaria

27. ULRICH R., (1986), Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and urban planning 13, No 1: 29–44

28. VANDEVELDE-DASSONVILLE B., (1982), Arbres et arbustes & fruits decoratifs. Paysage actualites No 50: 52–55

29. VEER A., (1986), The Geographical Distribution of Visually Strikinf Trees (VSTs) in the Rural Landscape of the Netherland. AJ 10, No 1: 53–61