Cross-Cultural Differences in Rural Landscape Assessment: Iran and Sweden

Journal of Research and Rural Planning

دوره 14، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 48، تیر 2025، صفحه 87-106   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jrrp.v14i1.2505-1138

نویسندگان

Mojgan Ghorbanzadeh^{* 1}؛ Seyed Hassan Taghvaei¹؛ Saeid Norouzian-Maleki¹؛ Åsa Ode Sang²

¹Shahid Beheshti University,Tehran, Iran

²Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lomma, Sweden

چکیده

Purpose- This study explores cross-cultural differences in the assessment of rural landscapes among landscape architecture experts in Iran and Sweden. The research focuses on three key indicators of landscape aesthetics: diversity, naturalness, and sense of place, aiming to understand how cultural background influences the perception and valuation of these elements in rural environments.
Design/methodology/approach- A quantitative survey approach was employed using a structured questionnaire based on a 7-point Likert scale. The sample included 31 landscape architecture experts—18 from Iran and 13 from Sweden—who were selected purposively and responded via email. To analyze the data, non-parametric statistical methods were used, including the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for normality and the Mann–Whitney U test for comparing group differences.
Findings-The results revealed that both groups valued vegetation diversity similarly, indicating a shared professional appreciation for diverse plant types. However, a significant divergence was noted in perceptions of naturalness: Iranian experts tended to associate cultivated and managed vegetation with higher natural value, while Swedish experts favored more untouched, wild natural elements. Regarding the sense of place, particularly the activity subcomponent, Iranian experts gave more weight to cultural infrastructure and traditional or religious events, reflecting the socio-cultural importance of communal and ritual activities in Iran.
Practical Implications- These findings can guide rural landscape planning and design processes that are sensitive to cultural context, providing a basis for cross-cultural assessment tools tailored to differing aesthetic values.
Originality/Value- The study contributes to the underexplored area of non-Western landscape perception research, offering fresh insights into how cultural frameworks shape aesthetic evaluations across distinct environmental and social settings.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Cross-Cultural Differences؛ Landscape Preferences؛ Diversity؛ Naturalness؛ Sense of Place؛ Assessment of Rural landscape

مراجع

1. Altman, E. I. (1992). Revisiting the high-yield bond market. Financial Management, 78-92.‏ https://www.jstor.org/stable/3665667
2. Aoki, Y. (1999). Trends in the study of the psychological evaluation of landscape. Landscape Research, 24(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426399908706552
3. Brown, G., & Raymond, C. (2007). The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, 27(2), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002
4. Budruk, M. (2010). Cross-cultural comparison of place attachment dimensions: A methodological approach. Tourism Analysis, 15(6), 759–771. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354210X12904412049745
5. Buijs, A. E., Elands, B. H., & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003
6. Eisler, R., Donnelly, G., & Montuori, A. (2003). The domination culture and the culture of partnership: Implications for education and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 59–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2003.03.006
7. Erikstad, L., Lindblom, I., Jerpåsen, G., Hanssen, M. A., Bekkby, T., Stabbetorp, O., & Bakkestuen, V. (2008). Environmental value assessment in a multidisciplinary EIA setting. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(2–3), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.03.005
8. Falahat, M. S. (2006). The concept of sense of place and its forming factors. Journal of Fine Arts, (26), 57–66. [In Persian] https://sid.ir/paper/5847/en
9. Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., & Makeschin, F. (2012). A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators, 21, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.027
10. Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., Witt, A., & Makeschin, F. (2013). Assessment of landscape aesthetics—Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty. Ecological Indicators, 32, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.026
11. Garrido-Velarde, J., Montero-Parejo, M. J., Hernández-Blanco, J., & García-Moruno, L. (2018). Visual analysis of the height ratio between the building and background vegetation. Two rural cases of study: Spain and Sweden. Sustainability, 10(8), 2593. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082593
12. Ghorbanzadeh, M., & Niloufar, P. (2019). Categorization of North Khorasan Villages in Terms of Indicators of Entrepreneurial Ecotourism Developments (Case Study: Bojnord - Golestan Road). Journal of Research & Rural Planning, 8(3), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.22067/jrrp.v8i3.78831 
13. Ghorbanzadeh, M., Taghvaei, S. H., & Norouzian-Maleki, S. (2023). Rural landscape: A systematic review of thematic contexts. Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning, 15(38), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.30480/aup.2022.4095.1890
14. Gobster, P. H. (1999). An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal, 18(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.18.1.54
15. Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22, 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
16. Green, D. G., Klomp, N., Rimmington, G., & Sadedin, S. (2006). Complexity in landscape ecology (Vol. 217). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4287-6
17. Hägerhäll, C. M. (2001). Consensus in landscape preference judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0186
18. Hägerhäll, C. M., Ode Sang, Å., Englund, J. E., Ahlner, F., Rybka, K., Huber, J., & Burenhult, N. (2018). Do humans really prefer semi-open natural landscapes? A cross-cultural reappraisal. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00822
19. Hermes, J., Albert, C., & von Haaren, C. (2018). Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany. Ecosystem Services, 31, 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.015
20. Hoyle, H., Jorgensen, A., & Hitchmough, J. D. (2019). What determines how we see nature? Perceptions of naturalness in designed urban green spaces. People and Nature, 1(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.19
21. Huai, S., & Van de Voorde, T. (2022). Which environmental features contribute to positive and negative perceptions of urban parks? A cross-cultural comparison using online reviews and Natural Language Processing methods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 218, 104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104307
22. Hung, S. H., Pálsdóttir, A. M., Ode Sang, Å., Shahrad, A., Liao, H. H., Hsu, Y. Y., & Chang, C. Y. (2023). How restorative landscapes can benefit psychological and physiological responses: A pilot study of human–nature relationships in Sweden and Taiwan. Landscape Research, 48(8), 1073–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2023.2213634
23. ICOMOS. (2017). ICOMOS-IFLA Principles Concerning Rural Landscapes as Heritage. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/GA2017_6-3-1_RuralLandscapesPrinciples_EN_adopted-15122017.pdf
24. Jackson, R. B., Randerson, J. T., Canadell, J. G., Anderson, R. G., Avissar, R., Baldocchi, D. D., ... & Pataki, D. E. (2008). Protecting climate with forests. Environmental Research Letters, 3(4), 044006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/044006
25. Jome’epour, M., Motiee Langerudi, S. H., Hajihosseini, S., & Salami Beirami, A. (2018). A survey of the environmental effects on the livability of rural areas (Case study: Villages of Buin Zahra County). Journal of Research and Rural Planning, 7(1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.22067/jrrp.v5i4.62494
26. Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners' attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0226
27. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press. https://archive.org/details/experienceofnatu00kapl
28. Karmanov, D. (2009). Feeling the landscape: Six psychological studies into landscape experience (Doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University). https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/379186
29. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press. https://archive.org/details/biophiliahypothe0000unse
30. Keong, C. Y., & Onuma, A. (2021). Transboundary ecological conservation, environmental value, and environmental sustainability: Lessons from the Heart of Borneo. Sustainability, 13(17), 9727. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179727
31. King, T. F. (2016). Perspectives from the field: Cultural resources in environmental impact assessment. Environmental Practice, 18(3), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046616000235
32. Kudryavtsev, A., Stedman, R. C., & Krasny, M. E. (2012). Sense of place in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.609615
33. Kunselman, A. R. (2024). A brief overview of pilot studies and their sample size justification. Fertility and Sterility, 121(6), 899–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.01.040
34. Kyle, G. T., & Johnson, C. Y. (2008). Understanding cultural variation in place meaning. In L. Kruger, T. Hall, & M. Stiefel (Eds.), Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management (pp. 109–134). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/29924
35. Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C.-Y., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 689–714. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141927
36. Lewicka, M. (2008). Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(3), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.02.001
37. Li, Y., Xie, L., Zhang, L., Huang, L., Lin, Y., Su, Y., ... & Chen, X. (2022). Understanding different cultural ecosystem services: An exploration of rural landscape preferences based on geographic and social media data. Journal of Environmental Management, 317, 115487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115487
38. Lim, S. S., Innes, J. L., & Meitner, M. (2015). Public awareness of aesthetic and other forest values associated with sustainable forest management: A cross-cultural comparison among the public in four Journal of Environmental Management, 150, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.007
39. Madureira, H., Nunes, F., Oliveira, J. V., Cormier, L., & Madureira, T. (2015). Urban residents’ beliefs concerning green space benefits in four cities in France and Portugal. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.11.008
40. McIntosh, J., Marques, B., Cornwall, J., Kershaw, C., & Mwipiko, R. (2022). Therapeutic environments and the role of physiological factors in creating inclusive psychological and socio-cultural landscapes. Ageing International, 47(3), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-021-09453-3
41. Mohammad-Moradi, A., Yazdanfar, S. A., Faizi, M., & Norouzian-Maleki, S. (2022). Measuring sense of place and identifying the effective components in the historical fabric of Tehran (Case study: The historical neighborhood of Imamzadeh Yahya). Journal of Iranian Architecture Studies, 8(15), 173–191. [In Persian] https://jias.kashanu.ac.ir/article_111823.html
42. Montazerolhodjah, M., & Sharifnejad, M. (2023). Factors affecting the promotion of sense of place in new urban developments of Yazd city. International Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning, 13(1), 1–16. http://ijaup.iust.ac.ir/article-1-640-en.html
43. Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
44. Ode, Å., Hagerhall, C. M., & Sang, N. (2010). Analysing visual landscape complexity: theory and application. Landscape Research, 35(1), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390903414935
45. Ode, Å., Tveit, M. S., & Fry, G. (2008). Capturing landscape visual character using indicators: touching base with landscape aesthetic theory. Landscape Research, 33(1), 89–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390701773854
46. Ólafsdóttir, R., & Sæþórsdóttir, A. D. (2020). Public perception of wilderness in Iceland. Land, 9(4), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9040099
47. Orians, G. H. (1980). Habitat selection: general theory and applications to human behavior. In J. S. Lockard (Ed.), The evolution of human social behavior (pp. 49–66). Elsevier. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1572261550449744896
48. Özgüner, H. (2011). Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks and green spaces. Landscape Research, 36(5), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.560474
49. Petrova, E. G., Mironov, Y. V., Aoki, Y., Matsushima, H., Ebine, S., Furuya, K., ... & Ueda, H. (2015). Comparing the visual perception and aesthetic evaluation of natural landscapes in Russia and Japan: Cultural and environmental factors. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 2, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-015-0033-x
50. Purcell, A. T., & Lamb, R. J. (1998). Preference and naturalness: An ecological approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00073-5
51. Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121972882
52. Ramezani, H. (2019). An assessment of landscape diversity using large scale field-based forest inventory. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 17(2), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.22124/cjes.2019.3406
53. Rosley, M. S. F., Lamit, H., & Rafida, S. (2017). Aesthetic and perception: Indicators of perceiving the rural landscape. Asian Journal of Behavioural Studies, 2(8), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.21834/ajbes.v2i6.31
54. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006
55. Shaw, V. N. (2019). Comparative and historical perspectives. In Three Worlds of Collective Human Experience: Individual Life, Social Change, and Human Evolution (pp. 137–151). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-07465-2_7
56. Swapan, M. S. H., Iftekhar, M. S., & Li, X. (2017). Contextual variations in perceived social values of ecosystem services of urban parks: A comparative study of China and Australia. Cities, 61, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.003
57. Taghvaei, S. H. (2006). Landscape architecture in hot and dry areas of Iran (pathology of visual effects in urban and rural environments). Housing and Rural Environment, 115, 34. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/993763
58. Taghvaei, S. H. (2012). Rural landscape and natural environment aesthetics. Journal of Housing and Rural Environment, 32(143), 15–38. http://jhre.ir/article-1-535-fa.html
59. Taghvaei, S. H., Norouzian-Maleki, S., & Alidoost, S. (2017). The role of “everyday landscape” in the quality of urban spaces: Case study: Girls’ dormitory route in Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. Soffeh, 27(1), 55–71. https://soffeh.sbu.ac.ir/article_100400.html?lang=en
60. Tenerelli, P., Püffel, C., & Luque, S. (2017). Spatial assessment of aesthetic services in a complex mountain region: Combining visual landscape properties with crowdsourced geographic information. Landscape Ecology, 32(5), 1097–1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0498-7
61. Trentelman, C. K. (2009). Place attachment and community attachment: A primer grounded in the lived experience of a community sociologist. Society & Natural Resources, 22(3), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802191712
62. Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269
63. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4
64. Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis (pp. 73–137). Island Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284655696
65. Van den Berg, A. E., & Koole, S. L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006
66. Van Zanten, B. T., Verburg, P. H., Koetse, M. J., & Van Beukering, P. J. H. (2014). Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: A meta-analysis of case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.012
67. Wahl, H. W., & Oswald, F. (2010). Environmental perspectives on aging. In D. Dannefer & C. Phillipson (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Gerontology (pp. 111–124). SAGE Publications. https://www.uni-frankfurt.de/54421080/Wahl_Oswald-2010-Environmental-Perspectives-on-Ageing.pdf
68. Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/49.6.830
69. Williams, K. J., & Cary, J. (2002). Landscape preferences, ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environment and Behavior, 34(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034002006
70. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Harvard University Press. https://archive.org/details/edward-o.-wilson-biophilia
71. Wynveen, C. J., Schneider, I. E., & Arnberger, A. (2018). The context of place: Issues measuring place attachment across urban forest contexts. Journal of Forestry, 116(4), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvy001
72. Zargar, A. (1999). An introduction to the Iranian rural architecture. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University. https://press.sbu.ac.ir/book_193.html
73. Zhang, N., Zheng, X., & Wang, X. (2022). Assessment of aesthetic quality of urban landscapes by integrating objective and subjective factors: A case study for riparian landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 735905. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.735905