Repositori URV

Identificador: imarina:9225835

Handle: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11797/imarina9225835

Autores:
Serrano Gine, DavidPerez Albert, Maria YolandaPalacio Buendia, Amalia Vaneska

Resumen:
In this article we compare two traditional aesthetic landscape assessment models, the psychophysical model and the psychological model. Our aim is to determine how close both theoretical frameworks are and to what extent they produce similar results, both thematically and spatially. We conduct the psychophysical model using a mapping procedure based on the use of geographic information systems, and the psychological one through a public participation geographic information system, and compare both using spatial analysis techniques. The results indicate that the two models produce divergent results, although both tend to coincide in locating positive ratings. The psychological model generates more and better ratings. Also, a correlation is revealed between the places visited by the users and the places with the best assessment. The main reason for the divergence between the two models is their different rationale. Neither model must be understood as a replacement for the other, but rather as a complement to each other, because together they generate information that cannot be provided separately.