** Progress in Earth and Planetary Science is the official journal of the Japan Geoscience Union, published in collaboration with its 51 society members.

    ** Progress in Earth and Planetary Science is partly financially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Publication of Scientific Research Results to enhance dissemination of information of scientific research.

    >>Japan Geoscience Union

    >>Links to 51 society members

    • Progress in Earth and Planetary Science
    • Progress in Earth and Planetary Science
    • Progress in Earth and Planetary Science
    • Progress in Earth and Planetary Science
    • Progress in Earth and Planetary Science
    Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

    Gallery View of PEPS Articles


    Human geosciences


    Comparing the visual perception and aesthetic evaluation of natural landscapes in Russia and Japan: cultural and environmental factors

    Petrova E G, Mironov J V, Aoki Y, Matsushima H, Ebine S, Furuya K, Petrova A, Takayama N, Ueda H

    Visual landscape classification, Aesthetic evaluation, Attractive landscape, Exotic landscape, Traditional landscape appreciation, Influence of natural environment

    Correlation between the estimates of Russian and Japanese respondents regarding the a) attractiveness and b) exoticism of different landscape categories: 1 – mountains, 2 – lakes, 3 – waterfalls, 4 – rivers, 5 – forests, 6 – “waterless” plains, 7 – swampy plains, 8 – sea coasts, 9 – trend lines and correlation coefficients, 10 – mean score.

    Japan and Russia have deeply rooted cultural traditions regarding natural landscape appreciation, share a common border, and have areas with similar natural environments. They differ, however, in cultural, historical, and economic aspects. The purpose of this study was to reveal the similarities and differences between Russian and Japanese respondents regarding the visual and emotional evaluation of landscapes based on ethno-cultural and regional differences. We asked respondents at universities in Russia (Moscow, Irkutsk, and Kamchatka) and Japan (Hokkaido, Chiba, and Miyazaki) to group and rate 70 landscape images. Unlike theoretical concepts that explain landscape preferences within an evolutionary framework or according to individual and cultural differences, we found that these factors interact in more complicated ways. Cultural traditions and features of the natural environment that were familiar to respondents influenced their visual perception and aesthetic evaluation of landscape. Russian respondents seemed more emotional while Japanese respondents tended to be more restrained in their assessments. However, there was a strong correlation between their estimates of landscape attractiveness, which might confirm the existence of universal human concepts of landscape aesthetics. The most attractive for both Russian and Japanese respondents were waterfalls, mountains, and lakes; waterless plains were the least attractive. At the same time, we found cross-cultural differences in assessing seacoasts, rivers, forests, and swampy plains. There was practically no correlation between Russian and Japanese respondents in their appreciation of exotic/familiar landscapes. For the Russian respondents, the most exotic landscapes were also the most attractive, although we did not observe such a tendency for the Japanese. All respondents appreciated certain familiar landscapes that were symbols of native nature as very attractive. Unlike ‘geoscientific’ landscape classifications, in the visual and emotional grouping of landscapes, the most important feature appeared to be the presence/absence of water and the type of water basin (river, lake, and sea); for Russian respondents (especially Muscovites), topography was also important, while the Japanese respondents mostly used visual and seasonal characteristics in their classifications. All Japanese respondents assessed the attractiveness and exoticism of landscapes almost identically, while there were some differences among Russian respondents from different regions.