Victorian Coastal Settlements

Managing Landscape Change to Conserve Place Character

Ray Green, (BSc, MLArch, PhD) FASLAProfessor of Landscape Architecture

Landscape Change in Coastal Settlements

q Residents of Australian coastal towns have been complaining about undesirable changes to the “character” of their towns and individual neighborhoods

q Understanding what people feel defines the character of local places, and whet they feel is being lost in terms of conservation and management of change to maintain desirable expressions of local place character

q Residents see ‘inappropriate development’ and degradation of natural environments as the primary reasons for loss of place character in these communities

q The ResCode Planning Provisions, in Victoria, requires local governments to assess new residential developments in terms of their likely impact on ‘neighbourhood character’.

q Identifying the landscape elements integral to a town’s character, and are worthy of protection, is typically delegated to design professionals who use their expert judgement in meeting this requirement

q Expert opinion in these matters can be incongruent with community environmental perceptions and values

q The body of research discussed here assumes the residents of the coastal towns studied are the true experts when it comes to understanding a community shared ‘sense of place’ and perceptions of local place character

Typology of Coastal Sea Change Settlements

q Commuter Settlements - suburbanized satellite communities in peri-metropolitan locations

q Getaway Settlements - small to medium sized coastal towns within a 3 hour drive of a capital city*

q Regional Cities - regional urban centres

q Lifestyle Destination Settlements - predominantly tourism and leisure related*

q Hamlets - small, remote communities often surrounded by protected natural areas*

Source: Gurran, Sqauire and Blakely (2005). Meeting the Sea Change Challenge: Best Practice Models of Local and Regional Planning for Sea Change Communities. Planning Research Centre, The University of Sydney.

* Settlement types that were the focus of the research presented here

Threats to Coastal Towns

Natural environment:

q Loss and degradation of coastal wetlands

q Habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban development and tourism

q Change in hydrological systems and freshwater and marine habitats

q Erosion

q Introduction of exotic plant and animal species

q Climate change – e.g. sea level rise, more frequent bushfires and stronger storms

Community wellbeing:q Social polarisation due to gaps between wealthy newcomers and existing residents

q Gentrification from demand for new housing and holiday accommodation that reduces the amount of affordable housing available

q Transience of populations and tourists

q ‘Sense of community’ being lost in many neighborhoods

q Residents’ fear of losing neighbourhood and town amenity values

MEETING THE SEA CHANGE CHALLENGE* warned that:

q New residential subdivisions and tourism development, particularly in Coastal Getaway and Lifestyle Destinations, are threatening to impact on the distinctive character of many sea change settlements.

q “Local character or ‘sense of place’ in smaller coastal communities is being overwhelmed by the scale and or pace of new residential and tourism developments (De Jong 2002**; Green 2000***).”

q “There is a lack of effective planning tools to preserve and enhance the attributes of place that are important to local residents”.

* Gurran, Sqauire and Blakely (2005). MEETING THE SEA CHANGE CHALLENGE: Best Practice Models of Local and Regional Planning for Sea Change Communities. Planning Research Centre, The University of Sydney

**De Jong, U (2001). Blairgowrie: The Meaning of Place, Urban Policy and Research, V20(1): 73-86

***Green, R 2000, Notions of Town Character: A Coastal Community Responses to Change, Australian Planner, 37(2), pp. 76-86.

q Explore how place character is experienced by residents of Great Ocean Road towns

q Develop methodology for assessing community perceptions of local place character

q Explore how people conceptualize change in local place character

q Identify relationships between biophysical attributes and a community’s perceptions of local place character

q Understand how people conceptualise the geographic area and character of their neighbourhoods

Research Aims

Great Ocean Road Region

Study Area Towns

Seven towns along the Great Ocean Road – Torquay, Anglesea, Aireys Inlet, Lorne, Apollo Bay, Port Campbell and Port Fairy

Towns were selected to represent varying population sizes, types of sea change settlements and distances from Melbourne

Data Collection Methods

Methods administered sequentially including:

q Projective mapping through mail questionnaires

q Photo inventory to document features identified as being salient to a town’s character gleaned from projective mapping results

q Photo-rating workshops using seven point, bipolar rating scales to collect responses and photographs of character defining features as stimuli*

q Focus groups using stimuli photos and statistical results to focus discussions

q Multiple photo-sorting method administered in face-to-face interviews

* Sets of photographs (68 to 109) from each town, depicting ranges of local environments/features, as identified in the projective mapping surveys, and were used as stimuli in the photo rating workshops and multi-photo sorting interviews.

q Content analysis of:

§ projective mapping data to identify§ landscape features§ locations from which to take stimuli photographs§ neighbourhood descriptors§ neighbourhood sketch maps

§ open ended multiple photo-sorting data§ focus group open ended data

q Descriptive statistics of photo-rating data to measure degree of perceived ‘character compatibility’, ‘beauty’, ‘distinctiveness’, ‘naturalness’ and other perceptual dimensions

q Multidimensional Scaling Analysis (MDS) of photo-sorting similarity data

q Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CAPTA) of photo-sorting categorical data

q Exploration of sub-group differences – e.g. length of residency and environmental history - t-tests, ANOVA, etc.

q Correlation analysis to test for associations between key variables

q Principal Component Analysis of categorical data derived from open-ended neighbourhood descriptions

Analyses

Sample sizes by towns by data collection method

Torquay Anglesea Aireys Inlet

Lorne Apollo Bay Port Campbell

Port Fairy

Projective Mapping – Mail Survey

293 300 230 263 140 24 94

Feature Rating Workshops

34 36 45 72 102 17 18

Focus Groups 12 12 10 - - - -

Multiple Photo Sorting

- - 20 26 30 - -

Totals by Town* 339 348 305 361 372 41 112

Stimuli Elements (Photos) by Town

84 109 104 81 70 68 88

Total Respondents (All Towns) – N=1878Total Stimuli Elements (Photos) across all towns – N=604

Aireys Inlet – Compatible Features

Aireys Inlet – Incompatible Features

Neighbourhood Sketch Maps

Neighbourhood Precinct Analysis

Aireys Inlet to Eastern View neighborhood boundaries determined through overlay analysis of projective mapping data

N1

N2

N3

N4

N4

N5

N1

N6

N5

N4

N3

N2

Aireys Inlet: Highly rated character features by neighbourhood precincts

Natural Features

Photo 20, Painkalac Creek and Valley - N-4(M = 1.00, SD = .0.00).

Photo 21, Inlet – N2(M = 1.00, SD = 0.00).

Photo 36, View of Beach to Lighthouse -N-4(M = 1.00, SD = 0.00).

Photo 39, Cliffs and Beach -N-2(M = 1.00, SD = 0.00).

Photo 3, Cliffs, Beach and Sea -N-1(M = 1.02, SD = 1.52).

Photo 42, Forested Hills - N-3(M = 1.02, SD = 0.15).

Photo 19, Beach and Coastline -N-1(M = 1.27, SD = 1.26).

Historic Structures

Photo 10, Lighthouse - N-2(M = 1.55, SD = 1.58).

Photo 32, Lighthouse Keepers House - N-2(M = 1.60, SD = 1.00).

Photo 5, Lighthouse Café - N-2(M = 1.84, SD = 1.17).

Photo 61, Bark Hut - N-2(M = 2.23, SD = 1.91).

Commercial

Access

Wildlife Habitat

Photo 143 General Store - N-1(M = 3.16, SD = 1.94)

Photo 40, Kangaroos - N-3(M = 1.02, SD = 1.52).

Photo 17, Wetland - N-2 (M = 1.53, SD = 1.55).

Photo 7, Art Gallery - N-1 (M = 2.50, SD = 1.25).

Photo 71, Breakfast Dinner - N-3(M = 3.86, SD = 1.70).

Photo 24 Coastal Track - N-2 (M = 1.36, SD = 1.20)

Photo 54, Painkalac Creek - N-3 (M = 1.42, SD = 1.47)

Photo 81, Sandy Gully Bridge - N-1 (M = 1.63, SD = 1.62)Photo 46, Moggs Creek Bridge - N-5 (M = 2.14, SD = 1.60)

Compatible Residential Development

Photo 47, N-1 (M = 3.00, SD = 1.33).Photo 14, N-2 (M = 2.98, SD = 1.37).Photo 59, N-4 (M = 2.81, SD = 1.61).

Photo 84, (M = 3.42, SD = 1.62).Photo 25, N-1 (M = 3.27, SD = 1.98).Photo 1, N-3 (M = 3.16, SD = 1.31).

Photo 44, N-2 (M = 2.53, SD = 1.01)Photo 29, N-5 (M = 2.40, SD = 1.73)Photo 4, N-3 (M = 2.23, SD = 1.36).

Incompatible Residential Development

Photo 11, N-1 (M = 6.05, SD = 1.19). Photo 50, N-5 (M = 6.02, SD = 1.49). Photo 83, N-1 (M = 6.00, SD = 1.63).

Photo 45, N-4 (M = 6.95, SD = 1.79)Photo 26, N-4 (M = 5.98, SD = 1.66)Photo 48, N-5 (M = 6.00, SD = 1.56)

Photo 35, N-5 (M = 5.88, SD = 1.42)Photo 64, N-1 (M = 5.88, SD = 1.31)Photo 16, N-5 (M = 5.91, SD = 1.46)

Incompatible Residential Development

Photo 75, N-4 (M = 5.86, SD = 1.25).Photo 63, N-1 (M = 5.63, SD = 1.83.

Photo 57, N-3 (M = 5.60, SD = 1.52).

Photo 30, N-2 (M = 5.52, SD = 1.69).

Photo 49, N-4 (M = 5.47, SD = 2.09).

Photo 67, N-4 (M = 5.49, SD = 1.45).

Vegetation - Compatible

Photo 12, Grass Trees - N-3 (M = 1.10, SD = 0.37)

Photo 1, Messmate Stringybark Woodland, healthy understorey - N-3 (M = 1.10, SD = 0.38).

Photo 13, Hyacinth Orchid - N-5(M = 1.41, SD = 1.22)

Photo 9, Heathland and forested background- N-5 (M = 1.44, SD = 1.38).

Photo 11, Coast tussock grass grassland/ riparian complex - N-3 (M = 1.27, SD = 1.12) Photo 5, Drooping Sheoak - N-5 (M = 1.63, SD = 1.61)

Vegetation - Compatible

Photo 16, Coastal Vegetation Complex - N-2(M = 1.66, SD = 1.67).

Photo 21, Sandy Gully vegetation – mix of indigenous and exotic species- N-1(M = 1.77, SD = 1.75).

Photo 17, Moonah Woodland - N-1(M = 1.88, SD = 1.91).

Photo 15, Indigenous coastal vegetation –N-2 (M = 1.73, SD = 1.58).

Photo 10, Messmate Stringybark Woodland, Prickly Tea-tree understorey -N-3 (M = 1.95, SD = 1.60).

Photo 3, Ironbark woodland, Varnish Wattle understorey - N-4 (M = 1.88, SD = 1.21).

Photo 18, Mixed Eucalyptus Woodland with Swamp Gum and Manna Gum – N-3 (M = 2.00, SD = 2.07).

Photo 8, Messmate Stringy bark- N-3 (M = 1.77, SD = 1.75).

Vegetation - Incompatible

Photo 14, Agapanthus in road reserve - N-2(M = 5.93, SD = 1.78).

Photo 7, Pampas Grass in creek reserve – N2 (M = 5.29, SD = 2.29).

Photo 2, Monterey Cypress - N-2(M = 4.33, SD = 2.14). Photo 20, Norfolk Island Pines in Park - N-2 (M = 4.71, SD =

2.22).

Photo 6, Willows, Norfolk Island Pines - N-2 (M = 5.05, SD = 1.88).

Anglesea:Neighborhood Precinct boundaries defined through analysis of projective mapping data

Focus Group Results

Two Contrasting Developments in Angelsea

Positive Attributes• Colours • Set in vegetation – native species• Screened by vegetation• Roof design reflective of local

historical examples• Timber construction• Small footprint• Low rise• No front or side fencing

Negative Attributes• Boxiness of form• Front and side fencing• No vegetation between buildings• Urban in character• Unfinished looking• No eves or overhang• Visually dominates street• Buildings too close to street• Not enough surface articulation• Concrete driveway• Repetitive design and materials• Not distinctive – could be

anywhere

Torquay: Features Compatible with “Neighbourhood character”

Photo 7, Main Beach - N-3(M = 1.00, SD = .0.00).

Photo 2, Deep Creek Track - N-2(M = 1.06, SD = 0.24).

Photo 23, Coastal Track - N-6(M = 1.09, SD = 0.29).

Photo 26, Spring Creek Reserve - N-4(M = 1.24, SD = 1.05).

Photo 25, House - N-3(M = 1.32, SD = 0.59).

Photo 30, Pastoral Land - N-5(M = 1.71, SD = 1.09).

Photo 41, Craft Shop Building - N-3(M =1.82, SD = 1.03).

Photo 1, House - N-2(M =1.97, SD = 0.72).

Photo 40, Building Wall and Signage- N-3 (M = 6.00, SD = 1.30).

Photo 18, Townhouses - N-1(M = 5.94, SD = 1.50).

Photo 27, Great Ocean View Estate -N-4 (M = 5.74, SD = 1.62).

Photo 77, Units - N-5(M = 5.59, SD = 1.74).

Incompatible features

Negative Attributes:

1. Too big in terms of height and mass – two and particularly three storey

2. A monolithic ‘boxy’ and bulky appearance 3. Highly visible from the road and open space areas4. Lacking in sufficient landscaping or not having retained

vegetation, particularly indigenous vegetation, during construction

5. A hotch-potch mix of colours, materials, design elements, roof types, window types, etc.

6. Lacking in vegetation to screen buildings from roads and public open spaces

7. Small front and side setbacks8. Visible above the tree canopy9. Concrete or asphalt driveways that are too visually

dominating and/or cover too much surface area10.Lacking articulation in the facades, thus giving them a

stark looking appearance11.Front fences, such as paling or other solid types of

fencing12.High density and high site coverage13.Traditional, clipped grass lawns

Focus group results: Neighbourhoods

Positive Attributes:

1. Screened by, or set within, vegetation, particularly indigenous species

2. Relatively small in both height and mass3. In colors that appear warm, earthy, muted,

natural and that blend with the surroundings making structures seem to recede into the landscape

4. Large setbacks and/on larger blocks of land5. Without front or side border fencing 6. Good landscape design7. Gravel or other natural materials for driveways8. Structures that are reflective of physical

aspects associated with historic buildings9. Not higher than the tree canopy line10.Relatively simple in architectural design but

not boring11.Fits into the landscape (e.g. lines and forms of

architecture reflect topographic forms)12. Light and airy looking13.With curved lines in architectural form, roofs

and driveways14.With areas of open glazing15.Not visually obvious from roads or public open

space areas16.Built of natural materials (e.g. timber, stone)17.Have well articulated façade treatments18.Presents a harmonious mix of architectural

forms – with moderate complexity

Lorne – Compatible Features

Lorne – Incompatible Features

MDS/CAPTCA Bi-Plot for Lorne*

Dimension 1:Unchanged - Changed

Dimension 2: Natural – Built *Data generated from photo-sorting interviews (N=26)

Groupings:

1 – Natural environments and features (M - 1.27, S.D. 0.23)

2 – Heritage buildings(M – 2.08, S.D. – 0.61)

3 – Large, new multi-unit apartment and hotel buildings (M - 5.36, S.D. – 0.67)

4 – Small, older residential houses(M – 3.70, S.D. – 0.23)

5 – Foreshore facilities, open spaces and activities(M – 2.37, S.D. – 0.63)

Group 1 - Natural Features (aggregate rating - 1.27, S.D. 0.23)

No.33: Shoreline Path at Scotchman’s HillCharacter Compatibility: Mean – 1.00, S.D.-0.00

No.46: Erskine FallsCharacter Compatibility:Mean – 1.04, S.D. - 0.20

No.22: Blue Gums to Sea at Scotchman’s Hill, Character Compatibility: Mean – 1.04, Standard Deviation - 0.20

No.41: Fern Gully on Erskine River, Character Compatibility: Mean –1.04, S.D. - 0.20

No.48: Gum Trees and Ferns along Roadside, Character Compatibility: Mean – 1.00, Standard Deviation -0.00 Derived Stimulus Configuration

Euclidean distance model

Dimension 1

3210-1-2

Dim

ensi

on 2

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

0.0

-.5

-1.0

-1.5

v70v69

v68

v67v66

v65

v64v63

v62

v61

v60

v59

v58

v57

v56v55

v54

v53

v52

v51

v50

v49

v48v47

v46

v45

v44

v43

v42v41v40 v39

v38v37

v36v35

v34

v33v32

v31

v30

v29

v28v27

v26

v25

v24

v23

v22

v21

v20

v19v18v17

v16 v15

v14

v13

v12

v11

v10v9

v8

v7

v6

v5

v4

v3

v2

v1

Descriptors• Natural – 574• Beautiful – 466• Vegetation (Forests) – 368• Beach – 203• Coastline – 154• Views - 130

Natural

Unchanged

Changed

Built

Group 1

Dimension 1: Built – Natural

Dimension 2:Unchanged - Changed

MDS stimulus configuration

No. 18 - The Cumberland HotelCharacter Compatibility: Mean – 6.23, Standard Deviation – 1.39

No.62: New Apartment BlockCharacter Compatibility: Mean –5.85, Standard Deviation – 1.38

No. 6: New Apartment BlockCharacter Compatibility: Mean –6.15, Standard Deviation – 1.32

Derived Stimulus Configuration

Euclidean distance model

Dimension 1

3210-1-2

Dim

ensi

on 2

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

0.0

-.5

-1.0

-1.5

v70v69

v68

v67v66

v65

v64v63

v62

v61

v60

v59

v58

v57

v56v55

v54

v53

v52

v51

v50

v49

v48v47

v46

v45

v44

v43

v42v41v40 v39

v38v37

v36v35

v34

v33v32

v31

v30

v29

v28v27

v26

v25

v24

v23

v22

v21

v20

v19v18v17

v16 v15

v14

v13

v12

v11

v10v9

v8

v7

v6

v5

v4

v3

v2

v1

Descriptors:• Inappropriate Architecture – 145• Lack of Planning – 99• Lack of Character – 84• Over development – 79• Ugliness – 57• Inappropriate Streetscape – 54• Degraded - 48

Group 3: New, Large Buildings (aggregate rating - 5.36, S.D. 0.67)

Group 3

Natural

Unchanged

Changed

Built

Dimension 1: Built – Natural

Dimension 2: Unchanged – Changed

MDS stimulus configuration

Lorne: Change in Town Character

Before 2003 After 2010

Apollo Bay HarbourCharacter Compatibility: Mean –1.04, SD – 0.24Beauty : M = 1.37, SD = 0.84Distinctiveness M= 1.32, SD. = .91Naturalness - M= 2.18, SD = 1.83

View up Beach to Apollo BayCharacter Compatibility: M = 1.09, SD = 0.32Beauty : M = 1.39, SD = 0.82Distinctiveness M = 1.37, SD = .68Naturalness M = 1.5, SD = .93

Apollo Bay from Hayley PointCharacter Compatibility: Mean –1.14, SD – 0.69Beauty : Mean – 1.31, Standard Deviation – 0.90Distinctiveness M = 1.33, SD = .83Naturalness M = 1.31, SD = .87

Apollo Bay No. 36: Marriner’s FallsCharacter Compatibility: Mean –1.16, SD – 0.61Beauty : Mean – 1.11, Standard Deviation – 0.42Distinctiveness M = 1.20, SD = .65Naturalness M = 1.11, SD = .63

Apollo Bay - Henty ReefCharacter Compatibility: Mean –1.19, SD – 0.63Beauty : Mean – 1.32, Standard Deviation – 0.79Distinctiveness M = 1.46, SD = 1.03Naturalness M = 1.19, SD = .94

Apollo Bay’s Barham RiverCharacter Compatibility: Mean –1.19, SD – 0.75 Beauty : Mean – 1.27, Standard Deviation – 0.80Distinctiveness M = 1.37, SD = .90Naturalness M = 1.19, SD = .60

Apollo Bay’s Barham RoadCharacter Compatibility: Mean –1.20, SD – 0.78 Beauty : Mean – 1.27, Standard Deviation – 0.82Distinctiveness M = 1.29, SD = .68Naturalness M = 186, SD = 1.50

Apollo Bay Reef View ApartmentsCharacter Compatibility: Mean – 6.30, SD – 1.25Beauty : Mean – 6.30, Standard Deviation – 1.50Distinctiveness M = 5.87, SD = 1.85Naturalness M = 6.65, SD = 1.04

House in Apollo Bay Under ConstructionCharacter Compatibility: Mean – 5.88, SD – 1.62Beauty : Mean – 6.13, Standard Deviation – 1.36Distinctiveness M = 5.31, SD = 1.98Naturalness M = 6.45, SD = 1.11

No. 42: Apollo Bay HarbourCharacter Compatibility: Mean:1.04, SD: 0.24Beauty : M = 1.37, SD = 0.84Distinctiveness M= 1.32, SD. = 0.91Naturalness - M= 2.18, SD = 1.83

Group 5

No. 29: View up Beach to Apollo BayCharacter Compatibility: M: 1.09, SD: 0.32Beauty : M = 1.39, SD = 0.82Distinctiveness M = 1.37, SD = 0.68Naturalness M = 1.5, SD = 0.93

No. 61: Apollo Bay Reef View ApartmentsCharacter Compatibility: Mean: 6.30, SD: 1.25Beauty : Mean – 6.30, Standard Deviation – 1.50Distinctiveness M = 5.87, SD = 1.85Naturalness M = 6.65, SD = 1.04

Group 1

No. 30: New House in Apollo BayCharacter Compatibility: Mean: 5.88, SD: 1.62Beauty : Mean – 6.13, Standard Deviation – 1.36Distinctiveness M = 5.31, SD = 1.98Naturalness M = 6.45, SD = 1.11

No.36: Apollo Bay No. 36: Marriner’s FallsCharacter Compatibility: Mean: 1.16, SD: 0.61Beauty : Mean – 1.11, SD – 0.42Distinctiveness M = 1.20, SD = 0.65Naturalness M = 1.11, SD = 0.63MDS/CAPTCA Bi-Plot for Apollo Bay

Character Defining Feature Typologies:

q Single-family detached houses rated incompatible with town characterq Multi-unit residential dwellings rated incompatible with town characterq Development sited in various landscape settingsq Juxtaposition of old and new buildingsq Industrial sitesq Commercial developments rated compatible with town characterq Commercial developments rated incompatible with town characterq Accommodation building – hotels, motelsq Vernacular ‘beach shack’ architecture q Houses set in established vegetationq Historic buildings of Port Fairyq Heritage buildings (all other towns)q Views rated compatible with town characterq Roadsq Beachesq Coastal geological formationsq Sand dunesq Streams, rivers, wetlands and waterfallsq Wildlifeq Facilities for accessing nature – paths, boardwalks, bridgesq Nature reservesq Rural hinterland viewsq Distinctive vegetation (all towns)

Geological Features

Water Bodies and features

Beaches

Vegetation

Vegetation

Wildlife and Habitats

Views

Access to Nature

Vernacular Architecture

Houses in Vegetation

Heritage Buildings – Port Fairy

Heritage Buildings – GOR towns

Roads

Nature Reserves

Hinterland

Siting of Development

Compatible Commercial Development

Incompatible Commercial Development

Accommodation

Multi-unit Residential dwellings - Incompatible

Detached houses – Incompatible

Industrial Areas

Juxtaposition Of Old And New Buildings

Dunes

Question 1: What are the types of environmental features residents consider to be important in conveying local character?

• Natural features in general (the substrate on which the character is built)• Geological formations (e.g. coastal cliffs, beaches, etc.)• Indigenous vegetation• Historic built features

Question 2: What are the types of environmental features considered to negatively detract from local character?

Developments that are large, “boxy” and high visibility from roads and open space areas That cause destruction of indigenous vegetation and introduction of exotic species

Question 3: What is the underlying structure of resident perceptions of town character?

Two key perceptual dimensions were found to discriminate between “in-character” and “out-of-Character” features and environments – Unchanged (old) versus Changed (new) and Built versus Natural

Question 4: How do residents conceptualise the geographic extend of their neighbourhood areas? Three typical versions of neighbourhood conceptualisation: • Areas of preserved nature where residents take walks and walk their dogs• Proximity to neighbours and friends• Proximity to facilities such as shops, schools, etc.

Findings

Sub-group Differences:

Length of residency (familiarity) - the longer the residency the more critical of change

Childhood residential setting - those who grew up in rural areas/small towns, as opposed to an urban environment, were more critical of change

Perceptual dimensions related to Town/Neighbourhood Character•Changed - Unchanged•Natural versus Built•New versus Old

Inter-Correlated Variables with Character Compatibility Ratings•Beauty - r =.968, (p <.01)•Distinctiveness - r = .964, (p < .01)•Naturalness r = .913, (p < . 01)

Findings

Green, R.J. (2010). Coastal Towns in Transition: Local Perceptions of Landscape Change. Springer: Netherlands and CSIRO Publishing: Australia