New Approaches to the Landscape Aesthetics Research

Document Type : Research Article




According to the approaches of landscape aesthetics developed in the twentieth century based on environmental
psychology and experimental works, landscape and urban planning is of high priority . On the other hand, the effect
of aesthetics on the perception, experience and changes of landscape is highly highlighted. According to researchoriented
perspectives, aesthetics is very important for perception and experience of landscape.
Aesthetics also affect the changes of landscape.
Nowadays, aesthetics plays a significant role in the landscape architecture and is used as a driver to change the
landscape in term of cultural values, social justice and environmental rights.. Aesthetics provide a new form of
sustainable landscape and contribute to beauty, acceptance and make sense of the landscape. The objective of this study
was to find the paradigm of landscape aesthetics in the future. According to the qualitative data of previous studies, to
understand future researches in the field of aesthetic landscape, three different approaches should be concerned that
are described in detail in this study. These approaches including phenomenological, psychological and ecological can
shape the general paradigm of landscape aesthetic and determine the direction of the future researches in the field of
landscape; therefore, this paper tries to answers these questions: what are the new approaches to study the landscape
aesthetics? How these approaches can be used to shape the researches in the field of landscape aesthetics in the future?
This is a descriptive-analytical study.. In this study, scientists’ views and intellectual typology of the past century
have been collected by analysis of the approaches mentioned above. If the phenomenological approach is perceived
as the exchanged type and the ecological approach as a holistic one, psychological approach is as psychological
and evolutionary approach. According to the results of study on the future researches on landscape aesthetics, the
approaches mentioned above are neither incompatible nor consistent. These approaches complement each other, but
explain different aspects of landscape aesthetics.


• Berleant, A. (1997). Living in the Landscape: Toward an Aesthetics of Environment. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
• Berleant, A. (2000). The Aesthetic Field, Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience, Cyberreditions. New Zealand: Christenson Publishing.
• Berleant, A. (2005). Aesthetics and Environment: Variation on a Theme. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
• Bourassa, S. C. (1988). Toward a Theory of Landscape Aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, (15): 241-252.
• Bourassa, S. C. (1990). A Paradigm for Landscape Aesthetics. Environment and Behavior, 22 (6): 787-812.
• Carlson, A. (1979). Formal Qualities in Thethe Natural Environment. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 13 (3): 99-114.
• Carlson, A. (1993). On The Theoretical Vacuum Inin Landscape Assessment. Landscape Journal, 12 (1): 51-56.
• Carlson, A. (2001). Education for Appreciation: What is the Correct Curriculum for Landscape? Journal of Aesthetic Education, 35 (4): 97-112.
• Carlson, A. (2004). Appreciation and the Natural Environment. In Allen Carlson & Arnold Berleant (Eds.), the Aesthetics of Natural Environments (Pp.63-75). Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.
• Carlson, A. (2006). The Aesthetic Appreciation of Environmental Architecture Underunder Different Conceptions of Environment. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40 (4): 77-87.
• Daniel, T. C., & Vining, J. (1983). Methodological Issues Inin Thethe Assessment Ofof Landscape Quality. In A.I. & J.F.Wohlwill (Eds.). Behavior and Natural Environment (Human Behavior and Environment), Vol.6. New York: Plenum Press.
• Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J.I., Daniel, T.C. Andand Fry, G., 2007. The Shared Landscape: What Does Aesthetics Have to Do with Ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22 (7): 959-972.
• Hudson, Liam, 1966, Contrary Imaginations. NewYork: Schochen Books.
• Ittelson, W. H. (Ed.) (1973). Environment and Cognition. NewYork: Seminar Press
• Jorgensen, A. (2011). Beyond the View: Future Directions in Landscape Aesthetics Research. Landscape and Urban Planning, (100): 353-355.
• Karimi Moshaver, M. (2013). Approaches and Methods in Urban Aesthetics. Bagh- e Nazar Journal, 10 (24): 47-56.
• Koh, J. (1988). An Ecological Aesthetic. Landscape Journal, 7(2): 177-191.
• Mansuri, S. A. (2012). Watching the Desert (A Reflection on the Aesthetics of Landscape in Hafiz Poetry). Bagh- e Nazar Journal, 1(1): 71-84.
• Maslow, A. (1998). Toward a Psychology Of Being, 1968, Third Ed. Contents: Van Nostrand.
• Maslow, A. (1966). The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance. Harper & Row. NewYork: Chapel Hill: Maurice Bassett.
• Mitroff, I. I., & Kilmann, R. H.. (1978). Methodological Approaches to Social Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Porteous, J. D. (2013). Environmental Aesthetics: Ideas, Politics and Planning. Routledge.
• Rosenberg. ANN. M. (1986). An Emerging Paradigm for Landscape Architecture”,. Landscape Journal, 5 (2): 75-82.
• Spirn, A.W. (1988. “). Nature, Form, and Meaning: Guest Editor’s Introduction. Landscape Journal, 7 (2) : Ii-Iii.
• Zube, E. H. (1984). Themes in Landscape Assessment Theory. Landscape Journal, 3 (2): 104-110.