Reliability of Rating Visible Landscape Qualities

Abstract

Reliability is measured by whether an investigation will obtain similar results when it is repeated by another party. It is argued that reliability is important at the level of individuals. While all landscape assessments are based on individual judgments, they are frequently aggregated to form composite judgments. The use of inter-group, intra-group and interrater measures of reliability in the landscape perception literature is reviewed. This paper investigates the reliability of assessing various visible landscape qualities using data primarily from previously published studies. The results indicate that there is reason for concern about the reliability of rating scales used in this field, and suggest actions for both research and practice.

Landscape studies have joined the shifting sands of scholarly inquiry. The empirical positivist tradition continues to hold that there is an objective landscape that can be studied through the careful application of scientific principles. Post-positivists, among whom I include myself, stand back from the stranglehold that science recently held on legitimate knowledge. They acknowledge other ways of knowing, but favor empirical methods of discovery. In response to positivism, post-modern landscape scholars with diverse viewpoints are investigating new ways to explore the personal meaning that landscapes hold for us. For instance, Norberg-Schulz (1979) has contributed to the rising importance of genius loci, Potteiger and Purinton (1998) are exploring landscape narratives, and Brook (1998) is adapting Goethe's approach to scientific inquiry through direct experience. In this flurry of activity some foundational attributes of applied everyday experience are lost or ignored. One such attribute is reliability, which is the subject of this paper.