Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지

Formulating the Landscape Preference Model Using a Mixed Conditional Logit

조건부 로짓함수를 이용한 경관선호 모델: 지리산 국립공원 방문자를 대상으로

  • Lee, Deokjae (Ecology Research Centre, Dongguk University)
  • 이덕재 (동국대학교 생태환경연구센터)
  • Received : 2006.09.27
  • Accepted : 2006.11.04
  • Published : 2006.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study lies in formulating the landscape preference model using a conditional logit that involves the effect of visual elements as well as landscape itself on landscape preferences. To measure landscape preferences, a photo-questionnaire composed of paired photographs of the Cairngorms National Park of Scotland and the Jirisan National Park of Korea was distributed to visitors to the Jirisan National Park of Korea. Visual elements of landscape quantitatively measured by photogrammetry were reduced to orthogonal principal components that were subsequently used as explanatory variables in a conditional logit. As a result, the mixed conditional logit including the effect of landscape itself satisfied the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) property and showed reliable goodness of fit (${\rho}^2=0.25$). It was concluded that the mixed conditional logit including the effect of landscape itself was appropriate for landscape preference model rather than usual conditional logit excluding the effect.

이 연구는 지리산 국립공원 방문자를 대상으로 경관선호 모델을 형성하기 위하여, 지리산 경관과 영국의 케이른고럼스 경관의 선택적 상황에서 경관선호를 결정하게 하는 요소로서 시각적 경관 요소와 더불어 경관자체의 효과를 검증하는 조건부 로짓모델을 제시하는데 그 목적이 있다. 선택적 상황에 따른 경관선호를 측정하기 위하여 지리산 국립공원을 방문한 탐방객에 대하여 영국의 케이른고럼스 국립공원의 경관사진과 지리산 경관사진을 쌍체로 배열한 사진설문조사를 실시하였다. 시각적 경관의 구성요소는 디지털사진측정의 과정을 거쳐 상호 수직적인 주요인들로 축약되어, 모델의 설명변수로 사용되었다. 연구의 결과, 시각적 경관의 구성요소만으로 형성되는 일반조건부로짓모델은 비유관대안도립성(IIA)의 가정을 충족하지 못하고, 모델의 설명력이 낮게 나타났다(${\rho}^2=0.06$). 반면, 대안특성상수(ASC)로서 표현되는 경관자체의 효과를 포함하는 혼합조건부로짓모델은 비유관대안독립성(IIA)의 가정을 충족하였고, 모델의 적합성 또한 양호하게 나타났다(${\rho}^2=0.25$). 이는 경관선호모델에 있어서 선호의 요인으로써 시각적 경관의 구성요소 뿐만 아니라, 경관자체의 효과를 포함하는 혼합조건부로짓모델이 적합한 것으로 해석된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 권태호와 이준우. 2003. 백두대간 마루금 등산로 및 주변 환경의 훼손실태: 만복대-복성이재 구간을 대상으로. 한국환경생태학회지 16(4): 465-474
  2. 김세천. 1988. 지리산국립공원의 경관관리에 관한 기초연구-(I) 경관자원을 중심으로. 전북대학교 농대논문집 19: 71-89
  3. 오구균과 이정은. 2003. 백두대간의 식물상, 식생, 이용 및 환경훼손에 관한 학술자료: 지리산 천왕봉부터 덕유산 향적봉 사이를 중심으로. 한국환경생태학회지 16(4): 475-486
  4. 하혜숙. 1994. 지리산 지역의 이상향에 대한 연구. 경상대학교 석사학위논문. pp52
  5. Andrews, M. 1989. The Search for the Picturesque: Landscape aesthetics and Tourism in Britain 1760-1800. Aldershot: Scolar Press. pp287
  6. Appleton, J. 1975. The Experience of Landscape. London: Wiley. pp296
  7. Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J.F., Canas-Madueno, J.A., and Ruiz-Aviles, P. 2004. Assessing the visuall quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 69(1): 115-125 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029
  8. Brown, T.C. and Daniel, T.C. 1986. Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science 32(2): 471-487
  9. Buhyoff, G.J. and Leuschner, W.A. 1978. Estimating psychological disutility from damaged forest stands. Forest Science 24(3): 424-432
  10. Buhyoff, G.J. and Wellman, J.D. 1980. The specification of a non-linear psychophysical function for visual landscape dimensions. Journal of Leisure Research 12: 257-272 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1980.11969449
  11. Daniel, T.C. and Schroeder, H.W. 1979. Scenic beauty estimation model: predicting perceived beauty of forest landscapes. In our national landscape (USDA Forest Service Tech. Rep. PSW-35). Berkeley, Calif.: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. pp.514-523
  12. Einhorn, J.H. and Hogarth, M.R. 1988. Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgement and choice. In: Bell, E.D., Raiffa, H., and Tversky, A. (eds.) Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp623
  13. Fechner, G.T. 1966. Elements of psychophysics (vol. 1). translated by Alder, E.H., Boring, E.G. and Howes, D.(eds.) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. pp286
  14. Gold, J.R. and Gold, M.M. 1995. Imagining Scotland: tradition, representation, and promotion in Scottish tourism since 1750. Aldershot, Hants, England: Scolar Press. pp228
  15. Hammitt, E.W., Patterson, E.M., and Noe, P.F. 1994. Identifying and predicting visual preference of southern Appalachian forest recreation vistas. Landscape and Urban Planning 29(2): 171-183 https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)90026-4
  16. Herzog, T.R. 1985. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 5: 225-241 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(85)80024-4
  17. Hogarth, M.R. 1980. Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp250
  18. Jang, M., Cho, G., Song, H., Byeon, H., Kim, H., and Joo, G. 2003. Fish Distribution and Water Quality of Mountain Streams in the Jirisan National Park, Korea. Korean Journal of Ecology 26(6): 297-305 https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2003.26.6.297
  19. Jensen, J.R. 2005. Introductory digital image processing. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. pp526
  20. Kent, L.R. 1993. Determining scenic quality along highways: a cognitive approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 27(1): 29-45 https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(93)90026-A
  21. Latimer, D.A., Hogo, H., and Daniel, T.C. 1981. The effects of atmospheric optical conditions on perceived scenic beauty. Atmospheric Environment 15: 1865-1874 https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(81)90222-5
  22. Law, C.S. and Zube, E.H. 1983. Effects of photographic composition on landscape perception. Landscape Research 8 (1): 2223
  23. Lee, D. 2005. Comparison of differences in landscape preferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Aberdeen University. pp315
  24. Lillesand, T.M. and Kiefer, R.W. 1994. Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp750
  25. Lothian, A. 1999. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning 44(4): 177-198 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5
  26. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, A.D., and Swait, D.J. 2000. Stated Choice Methods, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp418
  27. Murray, W.H. 1962. Highland Landscape. Aberdeen: National Trust for Scotland. pp80
  28. Powers, D. and Xie, Y. 2000. Statistical methods for categorical data analysis. Sandiago: Academic Press. pp305
  29. Ross R.T. 1974. Optimal orders in the method of paired comparisons. In Maranell, G.M. (ed), Scaling: A Sourcebook for Behavioral Scientists. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. pp 106-109
  30. Sayadi, S., Roa, M.C.G., and Requena, J.C. 2005. Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain. Ecological Economics. In press
  31. Shafer, L.E., Hamilton, E.J., and Schmidt, A.E. 1969. Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model. Journal of Leisure Research I (1): 1-19 https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1969.11969706
  32. Shuttleworth, S. 1980. The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management 11: 61-76
  33. Tips, E.J.W. and Savasdisara, T. 1986. The influence of the socio-economic background of subjects on their landscape preference evaluation. Landscape and Urban Planning 13: 225-230 https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(86)90036-8
  34. Venables, W.N. and Ripley, B.D. 1999. Modem Applied Statistics with S-Plus. New York: Springer. pp501
  35. Venables, W.N. and Smith, D.M. 2004. An introduction to R. R development core team. pp90
  36. Yang, B. and Brown, T.J. 1992. A cross cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Enviroment and Behavior 24: 471-507 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916592244003
  37. Zube, E.H., Sell, J.L., and Taylor, J.G. 1982. Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landscape planning 9: 1-33 https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0