The relation between landscape and recreation is very complex. There are various, interrelated approaches
to analyse this relation, such as land evaluation, impact analysis, spatial behaviour analysis, and assessment
of the scenic quality of the landscape or landscape evaluation. In many of these approaches air photo interpretation
can be a useful tool.
Man uses the land in many ways. Recreation as a
form of land use is of increasing importance in
many parts of the world. Man’s relation with the
landscape through recreation is special and is less
prone to strictly economical or utilitarian considerations.
‘Landscape’, in a holistic sense, is synonymous
with ‘land’, as well as with ‘environment’
(Zonneveld 1979; Vink 1982). In addition, there is
‘visual landscape’ or ‘scenery’ (Zonneveld 1979;
Bartkowski 1985). The various landscape types and
elements may have different suitability’s and/or
attractiveness for recreation.
Based on the concepts of Pearson (1961) and
Clawson and Knetsch (1966), recreation is defined
as “refreshment of body or mind by activities, or a
planned inactivity, undertaken because one wants
to do it, without any moral, economic, social or
other pressure’ (Van der Zee 1971, 1986 and 1987).
This definition of recreation comprises a large variety
of activities and implies that recreation includes
a large number of activities that take place in or
near home, and have no relation whatsoever with
rural or natural landscapes. But some recreational
activities exclusively occur in rural or natural areas.
Thus, a key concept in the study of the relations
between ‘recreation’ and ‘landscape’ is that of
People travel from their home base because they
want a type of recreation that cannot be provided
there. The direction of their travel is determined by
‘recreational resources’. Some want a mere change
of surroundings, so any place away from home will
- Others want sunny and sandy beaches to lie on,
mountains to climb, lakes to sail on, or snow to ski
on, but this does not make all beaches, mountains
or lakes into recreational resources.
Landscape features are resources only when man
identifies them and uses them as such. They may
have no original relation to recreation (Van der
Zee 1986, 1987). Recreational facilities can be
considered as ‘derived’ from these resources. It
I recreation types I t
I land evaluation I
impact on the landscape
behaviour patterns – J L
I landscape types or elements I
I landscape I
Fig. 1. The complex relations between landscape and recreation.
is important to note that the difference between
original resources and derived facilities is not that
between natural and man-made factors, because
man-made objects may be found among the resources,
for example, monuments, reservoirs, picturesque
towns or villages.
With respect to their spatial distribution recreation
areas can be classified into three main types:
‘user-oriented’, ‘resource-based’ and ‘intermediate’
(Clawson and Knetsch 1966; Patmore 1972).
User-oriented areas are characterized by facilities
that are important more for their location and
ready accessibility than for their inherent quality.
The dominant characteristic of resource-based
areas is their outstanding physical resources, irrespective
of their location. Intermediate areas lie
between these extremes, both geographically and in
Recreation in most of the rural landscape will be
resource-based, and ‘it is in the resource-based land
that the most serious conflicts arise between those
who seek to enjoy the resource and those concerned,
with varying motives, for its preservation’ (Patmore
1972). Several approaches for understanding the relations
between recreation activities and landscape
types are needed to achieve an optimal combination
of both recreation and preservation of nature and
Relations between landscape and recreation
Creating and maintaining recreational facilities and
providing goods and services to recreationists may
have a positive impact on the economy of a region.
Therefore, it may be rewarding to analyse the rural
landscapes for their recreational potential, suitability
and attractiveness; that is, to apply ‘landscape
evaluation’ to recreation. The presence of
recreational facilities and activities may have a negative
impact on the environment, sometimes to such
an extent that the quality and quantity of the recreational
resources are endangered. Therefore, it is
/ unit’s utilisation types \
/ land evaluation for recreation \
types of recreation
Fig. 2. Land evaluation for recreation.
necessary to analyse the behaviour of recreationists
and their impact on the environment. The analysis
of the relation between recreation and landscape
can be carried out by landscape evaluation, impact
analysis and behaviour pattern analysis.
Land evaluation for recreation
Land evaluation is a method or procedure in which
the characteristics of Land Units (LU’s), displayed
on maps, are evaluated for requirements of specific
land uses or ‘Land Utilisation Types’ (LUT’s) (Van
der Zee 1986, based on FA0 1977). Land evaluation
requires the collection and inventory of many basic
data associated with land, water and human development,
and therefore, can be a good approach for
a better understanding of the relations between
landscape and recreation.
When recreation is considered as a major kind of
land use in the same way as forestry or irrigated
agriculture the land units can be interpreted for
their recreational resources. Land utilisation types
used in this context are individual types of recreation,
such as boating, swimming, hiking, riding,
etc., each with its own land requirements that have
to be specified.
Identification of relevant recreation types
One of the first steps in the evaluation procedure is
to identify the relevant LUT’s for recreational use.
This might be accomplished by establishing peoples
preference for and participation in recreation by
looking at membership of associations or clubs
(Cosgrove and Jackson 1972; Patmore 1972 and
1983) by interviews, or by surveys. Use of club
membership has two objections. First, membership
does not necessarily give a realistic measure of
the rate of active participation. Second, it covers
only the realm of formal recreation activities and
excludes informal recreation. Moreover, such data
hardly reveal anything about land quality requirements
Interviewing people requires a representative
sample of sufficient size, a standardized and tested
questionnaire and numerous skilled interviewers.
This approach is difficult to organize and is expensive.
The development of a good questionnaire is
far from easy. While it is difficult enough to get
reliable answers from people of the same culture
and language, as was experienced in the study of
Van der Zee (1971) in the Netherlands, it becomes
almost impossible when working in a different cultural
setting and having to rely on interpreters for
The ‘method of potentialities’ suggested by
Defert (1954) may be a solution. If the recreational
use is not known, at least the capacity of the available
facilities can be established and mapped. In
most cases this means an inventory and the mapping
of the ‘physical framework’ (Defert 1954), or the
physical infrastructure of recreation (Van der Zee
1986). An inventory of recreational facilities, classi228
Fig. 3. Parameters to compare waterfall sites.
fixed according to type and capacity, also gives an
indication of which recreation types are in demand.
Latent demand and possible future developments
are not revealed, but that would be difficult with
the other methods too. In addition, there are types
of recreational use that do not need special facilities
and, therefore, cannot be caught in such an infrastructure
A map of facilities does not tell anything about
actual use, which may be larger or smaller than the
capacity (Defert 1954). Surveys can give an indication
of the extent to which the facilities are used and
thus give a weight factor to each recreation type. An
inventory of recreational facilities might be accomplished
by quick overall reconnaissance or air photo
interpretation (see MacConnel and Stoll 1969; Van
der Zee 1982, 1986 and 1988~).
The identification and inventory of recreational
The next step is to establish the land qualities necessary
for the recreation uses. These requirements
may be obvious for uses such as boating and swimming
where water is essential. Yet a map of water
bodies and water courses does not necessarily give
a good picture of the potential for water sports. A
forest setting is attractive for many activities, but a
map of forest areas is not identical to a map of
forest recreational resources.
First, the physical characteristics of the resource
should be described. Agricultural LUT’s are mainly
described in terms of soil and terrain. These qualities,
easily quantifiable and similar for different
LUT’s have given rise to standardized procedures.
For recreational LUT’s, such types of parameters
can seldom be used exclusively. An example is the
parameters developed to analyse waterfall sites in
Northern Thailand (Van der Zee 1988a and 1988b)
(Fig. 3), after a reconnaissance inventory had revealed
those sites were highly favoured for recreation
(Van der Zee 1988~)T. he physical requirements
for each type of recreation may differ.
Next the spatial patterns of these physical resources
must be established. Once this has been
done, landscape elements matching the required
parameters can be inventoried for areas where no
recreational use is observed. This can indicate the
availability of potential sites that may be developed.
Comparison of actual recreational resources
with such potential resources may reveal those factors
which determine use or non-use. From the
attempt to assess the importance of each of the
resource qualities for a number of waterfall sites in
northern Thailand, it became clear that these qualities
are very difficult to quantify and calculate their
proportional influences. However, high use did
correspond with ease of accessibility, except when
the site quality (determined by physical characteristics
as well as scenic quality) was low. Greater accessibility
can compensate for a somewhat lower site
quality but cannot bring high use to the lowest
quality sites (Van der Zee 1988a and 1988b). Also,
certain types of landscape elements on their own
may have insufficient attraction for recreation,
but in combination with other elements can be a
valuable recreational resource.
When it is possible to analyse the land use patterns
of the past (for example, by interpreting older
sets of air photos), we can determine which parts of
the area were first occupied by recreational uses and
which parts were incorporated in later phases? Also,
we can determine the character of the area before
recreational development took place. Such a study
may indicate which types of resources have (or had)
the highest preference (Van der Zee 1982, 1986 and
When the recreational resources have been identified
and inventoried, the suitability of the resources
for various recreational activities can be assessed.
In this assessment three aspects are distinguished.
- The ‘physical suitability’ determines whether an
activity is possible. For example, for swimming
or boating a certain minimum extent and depth
of water is a basic requirement. The assessment
of the physical suitability is the subject of land
evaluation in the strict sense.
- The ‘scenic quality’ can make one site more
attractive than another, even though the physical
suitability is the same. For many people a swimming
pool located in a city block is less attractive
than the same pool would be in a forest setting.
The assessment of the scenic quality has the
greatest degree of subjectivity of the three and
often is not included in land evaluation for non-recreational
LUT’s. However, for recreation
land evaluation it cannot be neglected.
- Not the least important is ‘accessibility’. A site
can be the most physically suitable and have the
nicest scenic setting, but if people cannot reach
Fig. 4. Three aspects in the suitability assessment for recreation.
it, they will go to less suitable, less attractive but
more accessible sites. Still, for certain forms of
recreation the accessibility factor may be less
critical, because the journey may be an integral
part of the recreation experience.
Which of these aspects is most important in determining
the actual use pattern and potential suitability
will vary from one situation to another, and will
depend on the type of recreation and landscape.
Main approaches to land evaluation for recreation
There are different approaches and different levels
of detail (reconnaissance, semi-detailed and detailed)
in land evaluation for recreation. (Van der Zee
1986). One starting point may be an increasing
demand for recreation that is exerting pressure on
the available resources. After identification of the
major demands, properly defining them as recreational
LUT’s and analysing their requirements, an
inventory is made of the land units, landscape elements
or resources that are suitable for these LUT’s.
Actual use then is compared with the potential use.
This gives an indication of the possibilities for further
development. These can lead to the development
of unexploited resources or to measures for
achieving an optimal use of the present resources.
This is called the ‘recreation approach’.
Another starting point can be the idea that a
recreational resource is available and that development
of it might attract recreationists (tourists)
from elsewhere, who will spend money to obtain
goods and services and thus have a positive influence
on the economy of the region. After a first
exploratory definition of the resource, the potential
land evaluation for recreation
approach + reconnaissance
Fig. 5. Three approaches to land evaluation for recreation.
demand should be identified. That means answering
the following questions. For what type of recreational
LUT’s would this resource be suitable, where
are the demands for this LUT, and what alternative
competing supplies are available? In other words,
what is the chance that development of the resource
will attract sufficient numbers of tourists to make
the investment worthwhile? Only after this question
has been answered positively should further studies
be undertaken to determine where best to develop
facilities. This is called the ‘tourism approach’.
Sometimes recreationists are attracted by resources
that also have high value for nature and/or
landscape conservation and that may be damaged
by too high a recreational pressure. In this case,
actual use and potential use are compared and possible
future developments identified. These futures
developments can be anticipated and guided or
deflected by knowledge about factors influencing
spatial behaviour. Thus, with proper management,
the main conservation aim may be achieved without
banning recreation completely. This is called the
‘conservation approach’. A variation of this
approach is to identify recreational LUT’s which
could be tolerated in parts of the area without interfering
with the major aim of conservation. This is
the ‘permissive approach’. Only in the conservation
approach + reconnaissance
approaches will a semi-detailed or detailed analysis be
required directly from the start.
Of course, other approaches are possible, and it
is clear that ‘land evaluation for recreation’ can not
be a single uniform procedure applying a standard
recipe. Each approach and recreation type requires
a tailor-made procedure, and different landscapes
or land units will match their demands.
Analysis of the impact of recreation on the
The impact of recreation
Like every human activity outdoor recreation influences
the natural environment and can be as destructive
as any industry. This certainly is not only
a ‘luxury’ problem of the rich western countries,
but the impact of recreation on the landscape in
developing countries will become more obvious as
standards of living rise (Robinson 1972). Therefore,
when assessing the suitability of land units for
a type of recreation, attention must be paid to the
impact that this recreation will have on those land
The type and strength of impact depends on both
the activity and type of landscape. The impacts
from recreation have been classified into several
Impact by physical facilities
The most direct and clear impact on the landscape
is caused by the physical facilities for recreation,
which may be either permanent, semi-permanent or
temporary. The aspect of a landscape can change
drastically if it is occupied by summer cottages,
caravans, camping sites, or a large parking place
(Van der Zee 1982).
All these facilities occupy space, even though the
direct claim on space is often modest (Patmore
1983). However, the impact of physical facilities
may be indirect. Service facilities, such as shops,
bars, restaurants, hotels, and pensions, prefer a
location in a village, adding to the total number of
structures. Villages with a recreational function
have the tendency to expand (Van der Zee 1983),
but the areas taken over by this expansion often do
not have the highest natural values.
Not all facilities, however, cling to existing settlements.
Sometimes complete new recreational settlements
are created, and sometimes facilities are dispersed
over the countryside. This dispersal often is
at the cost of areas with high natural and landscape
value, the very qualities that attracted recreation.
It is not only the recreational residence and related
facilities that create an impact on the landscape, but
transportation network, providing internal and
external accessibility to the recreation areas, can
put a heavy claim on the environment too. Also, facilities
created directly for the recreational activities
may occupy considerable space and severely influence
the landscape. For example, in Austria, between
1964 and 1975, more than 10,000 ha of forest
were cut for ski trails (Lansink 1983).
Sometimes changes are planned and occur in a
rather short time, but often the development of
physical facilities is a gradual process that is hard
to recognize. In such cases, the interpretation of
sequential aerial photographs may make the process
clear and reveal its pattern. This not only helps
in identifying the recreational resources in more
detail but also to find
Impact on vegetation
ways to control the process.
The impact of recreation is not restricted to the
space it directly occupies with physical facilities.
That a natural landscape is without any ‘official’
land use designation does not imply that it is not
used at all and is uninfluenced by man. Whenever
recreationists visit the natural landscape, they walk
in it, sit in it, play in it, and throw litter around.
In short, they display behaviour that normally is
not destructive in intention but is damaging in
effect, because the resulting changes in vegetation
cause degradation of the plant communities and
even soil erosion (Van der Zee 1983). People can do
as much damage to young vegetation as a bulldozer
(Clawson and Knetsch 1966).
The vegetation may be influenced in several ways
by recreation. Littering may turn oligo- or mesotrophic
environments eutrophic and change the species
composition. Recreationists may pick flowers,
take fruit or parts of the vegetation, or even dig out
complete plants. If this is done frequently and continuously,
some species will disappear. Planting
exotic vegetation may also influence the vegetation
(Raad voor Milieu en Natuur Onderzoek 1985).
Excessive withdrawal from the groundwater layers
to meet peaks in water consumption caused by
recreational visits may result in lowering of the
groundwater level to such an extent that the vegetation
is seriously influenced.
But, the effects of recreation are most pronounced
when the feet of recreationists create a network
of tracks and paths and areas of bare soil.
This is the ultimate stage of a process that starts
with a change in the vegetation composition and a
general degeneration of the vegetation. Of course,
some soils and vegetation types are more vulnerable
than others. In some types of recreation people are
more inclined to leave the paved roads and paths
than in others. Because this ‘recreational erosion’ is
a gradual process, often its extent can be judged
only by comparing sequences of aerial photographs.
Changes in vegetation composition are hard to
identify, but the increase in length of the worn path232
network and the increase in area of bare soil easily
can be measured and expressed quantitatively (Van
Ittersum and Kwakernaak 1977; Van der Zee 1983).
The patterns revealed by such an inventory may
give a further indication about the relation between
recreation types and landscape elements and the
spatial behaviour of the recreationists.
Impact on animals
The impact of recreation on animals occurs indirectly
through reducing the extent of habitat by the
construction of physical facilities, or by changing
the character of habitat through impact on the vegetation
or water quality. Direct impact comes by
taking or killing fauna. Also the mere presence of
a recreationist is a direct impact. People, boats, vehicles,
and planes create noise, vibrations and visual
disturbance (Raad van Milieu en Natuur Onderzoek
1985). Larger mammals, birds of prey, small singing
birds and birds that nest on the ground are especially
susceptible (Goderie 1986). Even in the most
isolated areas animals may be disturbed by a noisy
school class, an enthusiastic botanist, and photographer
or bird-watcher. When disturbances are frequent
and continuous, the result may be the disappearance
of species or a reduction of total animal life.
Recreation not only leads to a decline in animal
numbers, but it can change the species composition
of an area. For example, fish and pheasants are
stocked for recreational purposes, and scavenging
species are attracted to areas where there is litter
accumulation, as in car parks and around campsites.
Direct feeding of animals may lead to local
overpopulation of pigeons, squirrels or ducks.
Although the impact of recreation on animals is not
as easy to determine and inventory as that on vegetation,
it certainly should not be neglected.
Recreation causes many impacts and thus influences
the recreation resources. Understanding the
causes and consequences of these impacts is necessary
if the conservation of these resources is desirable.
In addition, the patterns of impact can reveal
the spatial behaviour pattern of users, and this can
be useful information in the land evaluation procedure.
Analysis of the spatial behaviour of recreationists
The need for knowledge on spatial behaviour
Recreation can occur everywhere but tends to be
highly localized. An inventory of recreational facilities
can give an impression of the spatial distribution
of recreational land use, that is the result of the
physical suitability, accessibility and scenic quality
of the landscape. It has been observed that within
a single recreation area as much as 95% of the total
use occurs on as little as 5% of the area (Clawson
and Knetsch 1966). Overcrowding of such popular
sites raises the problem of how access and development
can be managed for long-term conservation
(Cosgrove and Jackson 1972). It also means that,
even though there will always be some disturbance
in the most isolated areas, the largest part of the
area can be managed with minor measures only.
In order to plan for management of recreational
resources, detailed information on the spatial behaviour
of recreationists within a landscape element
is required. Where do people walk and sit in
the forest, at the beach or the lakeshore? What
parts of the lake are more frequented by boats and
what parts are hardly visited? Such information can
help in specifying the physical requirements of a
recreation type and in determining how the different
aspects of suitability are interrelated.
The structure of space and choice of place
The spatial behaviour of recreationists depends
on how the landscape is structured and perceived.
Three types of space can be distinguished: space
through which one moves, spaces which one occupies
for a period and spaces which one only sees.
Many relations exist between these three types of
space. What can be seen of the surrounding space
depends on the routes along which one moves.
These routes are determined by the location of the
starting point, the target point and the connections
between them. The method of movement also influences
the way one sees and what can be seen.
Moving through an area on foot, bicycle, horse
back or in a motorcar determines the speed and
the eye height above ground level (De Jonge 1965).
Visitors to a recreation area can be grouped into
two main categories: ‘stationary recreationists’ ,
those that settle predominantly close to entrances
and roads, and ‘mobile recreationists’ , those that
move through the area. For the first category,
social togetherness often is an important recreation
motive, whereas the mobile visitors have more
interest in the landscape and nature (De Jonge
1968). But both categories of visitors require a clear
impression of the spatial structure of the area,
otherwise, visitors may get lost or feel uncomfortable
(De Jonge 1965).
The spatial pattern of recreation is characterized
by intensively used nodes with linear linkage by
roads, bridle tracks and paths (Patmore 1972). The
lack of linkage of one concentration point to another
may limit the recreational possibilities of an
area. The concept of ‘connectivity’ that is applied
in so many landscapes ecological studies (for example,
Schreiber 1988) is important in this context too.
It is also important to note that border zones of two
relatively homogeneous areas, e.g. beaches, shorelines,
and forest edges, are more densely occupied
by recreationists than the other parts of these homogeneous
areas. This phenomenon is called the
‘border effect’ (De Jonge 1968). The preference of
visitors for ‘border zones’ in flat terrain is striking
(De Jonge 1965). This can be explained by the tendency
of people to select a place with a certain
visual shelter (especially at their back) but, at the
same time, allowing a view over an open space
(De Jonge 1968).
Analysis of spatial behaviour of recreationists
The analysis of the way in which the structure of
space influences the spatial behaviour of recreationists
and their distribution over a recreation area
can be done by field observations, marking on a
map the places where groups or individuals settle
down, and counting the number of people and
groups in the various areas at specific times. Interviews
can add to the information. By comparing
observations of different areas and periods, conclusions
can be drawn about choice and the way choice
responds to changing circumstances (De Jonge
1968). Such an approach is very labour intensive
and is hardly suitable for large areas.
When recreational use of the land results in the creation
of more or less permanent recreational facilities,
or clearly visible signs of impact, interpretation
of a single coverage of aerial photographs may
reveal the spatial pattern. However, interpretation
of sequences of aerial photographs over several
years reveals trends in both the preferences of recreationists
and their pressure on the resources. Because
the activities are not directly studied, this
analysis of spatial behaviour is called ‘indirect
monitoring’. An example of an air photo analysis
of the pattern of paths in dune areas is that for
the Dutch Wadden Sea islands (Van Ittersum and
Kwakernaak 1977). In addition to the assessment of
the degree of impact, types of path-patterns were
distinguished, which were correlated with the behavioural
characteristics of the recreationists (Van
der Zee 1983).
The study of spatial behaviour can also be done by
identifying recreationists, their vehicles, or vessels
on sequences of aerial photographs taken during
one day and/or in the course of one season. This is
called ‘direct monitoring’.
In the Netherlands, considerable experience has
been gained in several surveys of water sports since
1969 (see Dodt and Van der Zee 1984). In these surveys,
aerial photography as well as visual observations
from the air were used. The objects to be observed
were counted directly, or on either vertical or
(high and low) oblique air photos. Boats were identified,
distinguished by type, and marked in their
approximate or exact location on a map. Boating
densities were calculated per unit of area and length
of shore line.
Similar studies have been carried out for beach or
shoreline recreation. For example, the study of the
Randmeren (see Dodt and Van der Zee 1984), used
large scale vertical air photos to count people, tents,
motorcars, surfboards, rubber boats, and other
recreation paraphernalia for separate sections
of beach and for different distances from the
waterline. Distinct spatial patterns could easily be
observed and analysed. Irrespective of the natural
qualities of an area, people tend to settle at the
shortest distance from the parking place and/or
entrance gate, cling to the roads and paths, and
concentrate around facilities and attraction points
(Van der Zee 1988b).
Landscape evaluation for recreation
Assessing the scenic quality of the landscape
Analysis of the spatial behaviour pattern reveals
that most recreational use is restricted to small concentration
points and those large parts of recreation
and park areas have little activity, but provide the
scenic setting for the recreation activities. The
scenic quality, therefore, is one of the three aspects
determining suitability for recreation. The analysis
and assessment of this scenic quality is the subject
of ‘landscape evaluation’.
The way in which landscapes are seen and valued
for their scenic quality is highly subjective (Clawson
and Knetsch 1966; Zube 1987). Still, most people
would agree that some areas are inherently more
attractive than others (Clawson and Knetsch 1966).
Such opinions have been compiled by enquiry surveys,
sometimes referring to landscape elements
depicted on a map or to photographs of specific
landscape scenes (Baumgartner 1981; Zube 1987).
Although subjective judgements can be clustered
into reasonably objective results, this approach is
rather laborious and is still not free from subjective
The spatial behaviour of recreationists appears to
be closely related to the spatial structure of the landscape
and reveals preferences for certain landscapes
and landscape elements. These landscape elements
are reproducible by photography and sketches and
accessible in cartographic form (Neef 1984), and,
therefore, can be described by objective characteristics
to which their apparent attractiveness can
be related (Defert 1952). For comparative purposes,
these characteristics can be quantified (Cosgrove and
Jackson 1972). Air photo interpretation in this context
can be a relatively fast, reliable and economic
method to cover the need for data (Dodt and Van
der Zee 1984). Approaching landscape evaluation
in this way can make it more objective.
Analysing the visual structure of the landscape
One approach to landscape evaluation for recreation
was developed by Kiemstedt (1967, 1972 and
1975) that made use of the principles of Van der
Ham and Iding (1971). By measuring and weighing
climate, land use types, relief, and forest- and
water borders per square kilometre grid cell, an
overall value was established that characterizes
the landscape elements that affect the recreational
attractiveness of an area. The inventory is restricted
to the elements that visibly structure the landscape
and the open areas between. The elements are characterized
by size, shape and density or transparency,
the open areas by extent and the type of elements
The spatial arrangement of these elements, called
the ‘visual structure’ of the landscape, is of importance
because it contributes to the visual information
that is strongly related to the attractiveness of
the landscape. In addition, the land use and field
pattern contributes to the visual structure. Relief is
significant, especially in a flat country such as the
For the inventory and analysis of space structure,
topographic maps have been the main source of information
on land use, field pattern, and relief.
But newer methods have relied more on air photo
interpretation using units delineated by natural
boundaries. Recently, satellite image analysis has
been used (Janssen’s and Gulinck 1988).
Air photo interpretation offers still other advantages.
Colwell (1950) observed that points which
have excellent views of the surrounding terrain are
easily detected by stereoscopic air photo interpretation.
They can be used also to determine whether
objects of scenic interest will be visible from certain
vantage points or will be obscured by intervening
terrain. This means that ‘view sheds’, the area seen
from a viewing point can be determined (see for
example: Aguilo and Ramos 1981).
When analysing the visual structure of the landscape,
it should not be forgotten that man perceives
the landscape also by other senses (Bartkowski
1985), but that these ways of perception are more
difficult to survey and analyse.
The relations between recreation and landscape are
complex. While the various approaches and methods
by which the different aspects of this relation
can be analysed could be only briefly described,
it is clear that they are closely interrelated and are
centred on land evaluation. Data collected
for the analysis of one aspect also can help to
explain other aspects of recreation. In many of the
approaches, air photo interpretation is a very useful
tool, and it is worthwhile to further explore the possibilities
of its use.
Aguilo, M. and Ramos, A. 1981. View shed and Landscape
Morphology. In Proceedings of the International Congress of
the Netherlands Society for Landscape Ecology, Veldhoven,
the Netherlands. Pudoc, Wageningen. pp. 310-311.
Bartkowski, T. 1985. The concept of physiognomic landscape as
a tool for spatial ecological planning. In VIIth International
Symposium on problems of Landscape Ecological Research.
Panel 1, Vol. 1, part 1.1; 21-26 October 1985, Pezinok,
Baumgartner, R. 1981. Inventory and Evaluation from the
Visual/Aesthetic Perspective. In Proceedings of the International
Congress of the Netherlands Society for Landscape
Ecology, Veldhoven, the Netherlands. Pudoc, Wageningen.
Clawson, M. and Knetsch, J.L. 1966. Economics of outdoor
recreation. Resources for the future, Inc., Washington D.C.
(2nd edition 1969).
Colwell, R.N. 1950. Use of aerial photographs in forest recreation.
In Photogrammetric Engineering, Vol. XVI, pp. 21-31.
Cosgrove, I. and Jackson, R. 1972. The geography of recreation
and leisure. Hutchinson University Library, London.
Defert, P. 1952. Les fondements geographiques du tourisme. In
Zeitschrift fur Fremdenverkehr, No. 4, pp. 126-132.
Defert, P. 1954. Essai de localisation touristique. In Zeitschrift
fur Fremdenverkehr, No. 3, pp. 110-118.
Dodt, J. and Zee, D. van der 1984. Moglichkeiten der Andwendung
von Luftbildinterpretation in der raumlichen Freizeitund
Erholungsplanung. In Angewandte Fernerkundung.
Methoden und Beispiele. Akademie fur Raumforschung und
Landesplanung. Vincentz, Hannover, pp. 65-70.
FAO, 1977. A framework for land evaluation. ILRI Publication
No. 22, Wageningen.
Goderie, R. 1986. Recreatie en natuurbehoud in natuurbos; controverse
of synthesis? In Recreatie & Toerisme, No. 12,
Ham, R.J.I.M. van der and Iding, J.A.M.E. 1971. De landschapstypologie
naar visuele kenmerken. Methodiek en
gebruik. Afdeling landschapsarchitectuur, Landbouwhogeschool,
Ittersum, G. van and Kwakernaak, C. 1977. Gevolgen van de
recreatie voor het natuurlijk milieu. In Eilanden onder de
voet, pp. 59-103. Werkgroep Recreatie van de Landelijke
Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee. Harlingen.
Janssen’s, P. and Gulinck, H. 1988. Image analysis of remote
sensing data (SPOT) for landscape typology. In Proceedings
of the VIIIth International Symposium on Problems of Landscape
Ecological Research, October 3-7 1988, Zemplinski
Sirava, Czechoslovakia. Vol. I: Spatial and functional relationships
in landscape ecology, pp. 31-37.
Jonge, D. de, 1965. Structurering van de ruimte in recreatiegebieden.
In Bouw, No. 49, pp. 1872-1875.
Jonge, D. de, 1968. Plaatskeuze in recreatiegebieden. In Bouw,
Kiemstedt, H. 1967. Zur Bewertung der Landschaft fur die
Erholung. Beitrage zur Landespflege, Sonderheft 1. Institut
fur Landesplanung und Raumforschung der TH Hannover.
Kiemstedt, H. 1972. Erfahrungen und Tendenzen in der Landschaftsbewertung.
In Zur Landschaftsbewertung fur die
Erholung. Forschungsberichte des Forschungsausschusses
‘Raum und Fremdenverkehr’ der Akademie fur Raumforschung
und Landesplanung. Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte,
Band 76. Raum and Fremdenverkehr 3, Hannover.
Kiemstedt, H. et al., 1975. Landschaftsbewertung fur Erholung
im Sauerland. Schriftenreihe Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung
des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Landesentwicklung,
Lansink, A. 1983. Skien: samenmet het landschap richting bergaf.
In Natuur en milieu, 83/1, pp. 13-16.
MacConnel, W.P. and Stoll, P. 1969. Evaluating Recreational
Resources of the Connecticut River. In Photogrammetric
Engineering, Vol. 35, pp. 686-692.
Neef, E. 1984. Applied Landscape Research. Paper distributed
at the First International Seminar of the International Association
for Landscape Ecology (IALE), Roskilde University
Centre, Denmark, October 1984.
Patmore, J.A. 1972. Land and Leisure. Penguin Books Ltd,
Patmore, J.A. 1983. Recreation and Resources. Leisure patterns
and leisure places, Basil Blackwell publisher Ltd, Oxford,
- 1, pp. 13-15.
Pearson, R.M. 1961. The terminology of recreational geography.
In Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and
Letters, Vol. XLVII, 1962, pp. 447-451.
Raad voor het Milieu en Natuur Onderzoek (RMNO), 1985. Bijdragen
van de programmerings- en studiegroepen an het
RMNO jaaradvies 1984. Bijdrage van de PSG Recreatie en
Natuurlijk Milieu. pp. 77-95.
Robinson, G.W.S. 1972. The recreation geography of South
Asia. In The Geographical Review, Vol. LXII, No. 4, pp.
Vink, A.P.A. 1982. Landscape ecological mapping. In ITCJournal,
No. 3, pp. 338-343.
Zee, D. van der, 1971. Rekreatie in en vanuit vaste buitenverblijven
in het Drie Provincien Gebied. Planologisch Studiecentrum
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1974. 160 pp. + 79 pp.
App. + 8 maps.
Zee, D. van der, 1982. An analysis of recreational development
using sequential aerial photographs. In ITC Journal 1982-3,
Zee, D. van der, 1983. Man’s activities and their impact on the
natural landscape of the islands. Part 8.1 of chapter 8: Man’s
interference. In Edited by K.J. Dijkeman and W.J. Wolff
Flora and vegetation of the Waddensea islands and coastal
areas. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 270-279.
Zee, D. van der, 1986. Analysis and evaluation of recreational
resources with the aid of remote sensing. In Remote sensing
for resources development and environmental management.
In Proc. of the 7th Intern. Symp. of the ISPRS, Enschede,
25-29 August 1986. Commission VII: Interpretation of pho-
to graphic and remote sensing data. International archives of
photogrammetry and remote sensing, Vol. 26, part 7/2,
Zee, D. van der, 1987. The recreational resources of the Mae Sa
Valley viewed in some theoretical context. (A challenge for
further research and reflection). In Proceedings of the seminar
on ‘The role of geography in the tourism development’,
- 66-68. Geographical Association of Thailand, Kanchanaburi,
26-29 October 2530.
Zee, D. van der, 1988a. Down by the waterfall. The waterfall sites
of the Mae Sa Valley area analysed and evaluated as
recreational resources. ITC, Enschede.
Zee, D. van der, 1988b. The importance of the spatial aspect in
the evaluation of recreational resources in the landscape. In
Proceedings of the VIIIth International Symposium on Problems
of Landscape Ecological Research, October 3-7, 1988,
Zemplinska Sirava, Czechoslovakia; Theme 1 : Spatial relations
in Landscape Ecology, Vol. 1, pp. 85-91.
Zee, D. van der, 1988c. Mae Sa’s recreation boom remotely
sensed. Analysing and evaluating Mae Sa valley’s recreational
resources with the aid of remote sensing. In Proceedings of
the ninth Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, November
23-29, 1988, Bangkok, Thailand; pp. 5-8-1/7.
Zonneveld, I.S. 1979. Land evaluation and land(scape) science.
ITC textbook of photo-interpretation, Vol. VIII, Chapter
VII. Second, amended and corrected edition. ITC, Enschede.
Zube, E.H. 1987. Perceived land use patterns and landscape
values. In Landscape Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 37-45