The use of latent classes to identify individual differences in the importance of landscape dimensions for aesthetic preference

Abstract

Most literature in landscape perception and preference has focused on aesthetic preference by (groups of) people. Factors that could influence the aesthetic preference, such as landscape dimensions and observer's background characteristics, are far less examined. This may be due to the increasing complexity of the dataset, when variation both in landscape attributes and respondents’ characteristics is to be included in the models. The complex multivariate analysis models that emerge require more sophisticated statistical analysis. Also, the conclusions that result from the traditional analysis sound like, e.g. experts show lower preferences than nonexperts, which is rather deterministic and leaves no room for fuzziness. Latent class analysis provides an opportunity to include fuzziness, by only probabilistically assigning respondents in a latent class in function of the respondent's characteristics. The present paper explores the use of latent class analysis to determine individual differences in the importance appended to several landscape dimensions for landscape aesthetic preference. A questionnaire survey was executed in a spatially stratified sample amongst inhabitants of the city of Ghent (Flanders, Belgium). Latent preference classes are identified of which the cases vary in the level of importance attached to landscape characteristics for aesthetic preference. Care and disturbance appear to have larger effect on preference than naturalness and urbanisation. The effect of care and disturbance on landscape aesthetic preference also most significantly distinguishes between the latent preference classes. The importance of openness for aesthetics is small and not significantly dependent on the individual background of the observer. Respondents’ characteristics that affect the probability of belonging to a latent preference class are environmental behaviour and attitude, actual living environment, age class, education level, and organisation membership. Understanding the basis for differences in landscape preference may respond to tastes and aspirations of the general public, putting landscape planning in the broader context of society.