I I Scenic and Recreational Envi ron ments

Transcription

1 I I Scenic and Recreational Envi ron ments

2 The Constructs of Perceived Quality in Scenic and Recreational Environments The functions of the environment are many and diverse-some general and some specific; some biological, physical, and social; and some psychological. As a source of aesthetic satisfaction-for example, as scenery-the environment can contribute to one's perceived sense of well-being. The general environmental function is that of a source of information, of a psychological stimulus. The perceived quality of the scenery is a function of the interaction of man and the environment. In contrast, as a source of outdoor recreation and satisfaction, the environment functions both as psychological stimulus and as a setting for social interaction. Except for a few solitary recreational pursuits, most recreational activities involve interaction's with both the social and the physical environment. The perception of the quality of the recreational environment, therefore, may be as much a function of the interpersonal activities as of the physical setting which accommodates them. Peterson (Chapter 4) suggests, for example, that social carrying capacity or the level of crowding is an important dimension of the perceived satisfaction of wilderness recreation. This is an aspect of a particular environment and of specific types of people and recreational purposes. It is also an example of the interaction of social and physical milieus in the perception of the quality of recreation environments. Conceptually, scenery is a characteristic of all environments. It is the general appearance of places and the aggregated features which help to define the character of these places, both natural and urban. Recreational environments, however, are more readily defined in terms of discrete places. The environmental function of many of these individual 23

3 24 II/SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS recreation places (e.g., parks, playgrounds, hunting areas) tends to be specific rather than general. Brush (Chapter 3) notes that there is little in the literature on user evaluations of recreational environments. He speculates that the highly personal and subjective nature of leisure activities may mitigate against indices of quality for recreational environments that would be valid across large segments of the population. But for the scenic quality of non urban landscapes, he finds evidence of a considerable degree of agreement across population segments. This consensus across populations also encompasses laypersons and professional environmental designers. In addition, he finds some support in reference to scenic quality for the distinction between preferential judgments appealing to personal tastes and predispositions, and comparative appraisals appealing to a widely held standard. The conceptual and empirical distinctions, identified in the chapters, between scenic environments and recreation environments suggested to workshop participants the possibility of two kinds of PEQIs. The first, place-centered appraisals are environmentally focused, describing general attributes that are stable across population segments, and consensually used by most people. The scenic quality research findings reported by Brush tend to support this concept. Workshop discussion suggested that place-centered appraisals would have potential utility for monitoring regional changes in scenic quality, for evaluating alternative sites for large-scale projects, and as a component of a broadbased, aggregated. quality-of-environment or quality-of-life index. Person-centered assessments were defined as more specific and observer focused. It would show intergroup differences; it would be specific for particular groups and decisions. It would also appear to be more consonant with the conclusions drawn from recreation-oriented research by both Brush and Peterson. Person-centered assessments would have potential utility for gauging environmental impacts and for postconstruction evaluations from the vantage points of specific user groups. Peterson also suggests a possible relationship of these PEQIs to the notion of comparative appraisals and preferential judgments. Placecentered appraisals with an environmental focus are obtained from either comparative appraisals or preferential judgments, while personoriented person-centered assessments are derived solely from preferential judgments. In both cases the observer is the measuring

4 INTRODUCTION 25 instrument, and in both cases the need for an experiential basis for the PEQI is recognized. Both Brush and Peterson conclude that research is considerably more advanced on the scenic environmental domain, a point which was reinforced in the round table discussion. Peterson discusses a range of factors which are potentially important to the conceptual analysis of recreational environments and also presents a strong case for a careful analysis of the concept of quality as it relates to various environmental domains. The development of standard PEQIs for scenic and recreational environments raises the pragmatic issue of what is to be measured and the subsequent evaluative concerns of reliability and validity. The domain of what to measure is perhaps least clearly provided by the current constructs of recreational quality. Daniel (Chapter 2) observes that the selection of the relevant dimension, as in the case of landscape beauty, is not too great a problem, but that its unambiguous specification to an observer can be more difficult. In the case of the recreational environment, as indicated by Peterson, this problem is confounded by the difficulty of qualitative discrimination between the activity and the supporting environment. While the observer-participant activity is reasonably well described from scenic environments (i.e., seeing or viewing) and is also constant across all settings, such is not true for recreational settings. Activities vary from passive and sedentary to active and highly mobile and are dependent in part on the physical attributes of specific settings. Both Peterson and Daniel imply that the identification of what to measure might be facilitated by a perceptually defined landscape taxonomy that would attempt to identify and describe-not evaluate-environments and related activities which are perceived to be similar in nature. Such a taxonomy might be particularly helpful in dealing with the recreational environment. In other words, a set of standard environments or components would be identified and described for use in the development of scenic and recreational PEQIs. Whether the assessment of quality would be facilitated by the identification of standard environments or environmental components is conjectural. Intuitively, however, the concept has appeal and appears commonsensical. In the following chapters, Daniel reviews the measurement requirements and criteria for a sound and effective index; Brush surveys empirical research on the factors affecting perception of scenic and

5 26 II/SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS recreational quality, and Peterson offers directions for research and development guided by a conceptual model of the process of environmental perception and appraisal, illustrating some of the practical questions of recreational and resource management which a PEQI measurement system might usefully address.