Fortalecimiento de las relaciones interculturales

Place Identity

Place identity is an interpretation of the self that uses place as a significant, symbolic locale, sign or locus identity (Hummon, 1986). Place identity is more than an attachment to a place; it is “an individual’s cognitions, beliefs, perceptions or thoughts that the self is invested in a particular spatial setting” (Jorgensen &

Stedman, 2001). The place identity construct has its origins in “place identity theory”

(Proshansky et al., 1983) which has roots in symbolic interactionism (Mead &

Morris, 1934) and cognitive self- concept theories (Gecas, 1982; James, 1890) Perceptions

Landscape perception is considered as a function of the interaction between the human and the landscape (Zube et. al, 1982). Zube (1982) highlighted that the human component encompasses experience, knowledge, expectations and social-cultural context of individuals and groups. While, the landscape components include both the individual elements and landscape as the entities. More precisely, perception is one of the physical-psychological processes through which human acquire information of the environment (Dasgupta, Banaji, & Robert P. Abelson, 1999).

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

7

Preferences

According to R. Kaplan, Kaplan, & Brown (1989), preference is the product of the perception. Obviously, the difference between the perception and the preference in term of the level of the thinking process (Herzog & Herbert, 2000). Preference involves a low thinking process that suitable for participants which include the non-expert rather than the perception. There is no hint in the consciousness of the complex, inferential process that appears to underline the judgment of the preference (Kaplan, 1987). Furthermore, people perceived their environment more in the visual form and based on this fact, to understand the environment is easier by using the materials in the visual form (Nassauer, 1995). Therefore, preference in the context of this study was referred on how much people perceive their future riverfront look like which presented in photographs and they just need to rate them using the preference scale given.

Riverfront

Although the word waterfront clearly mentions the meaning, some of the researcher prefer to replace the waterfront with others word for example city port, harbour front, river side, and riverfront to be more specific (Hussein, 2005). Therefore, riverfront is defined as the land that fronting to the river.

Sustainable Urban Design

A process in which sustainability concept is taken into account when deciding which urban design features should be incorporated into urban (re)development plans. The concept of sustainable development was defined by World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) as ‘‘a development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’ in 1987 (WCED, 1987;Chan & Lee, 2016). Generally agreed that economy, environment and social equity are three foremost components of sustainability concept (Berke & Manta Conroy, 2000; Samson, 1995; Shearlock, James, & Phillips, 2000).

Waterfront

Generally, the waterfront refers to the zone of interaction between the land and the water. According to Dong (2004), the waterfront is defined as the land fronting on to water while Zhang (2002) characterizes waterfront as a place integrating land with water and having a natural attraction to people. Breen & Rigby (1994) view waterfront at the water's edge in cities and towns of all sizes and the water body may be a river, lake, ocean, bay, creek or canal. In addition, Breen & Rigby (1996) believe that waterfront property may not necessarily need to be directly fronting to water, but just might have to see attached to the water.

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

8

Although the term ‘waterfront’ clearly defined by researchers, some of them have used the term using other words such as city port, harbour front, river side, and riverfront to be more specific (Hussein, 2005). In this research ‘waterfront’ refers to the land fronting onto the water, which endowed with special features and characters, while the ‘riverfront’ refers to the land which fronting onto the river body area.

Visual Preference Survey (VPS)

Visual Preference Survey (VPS) is a visualization method to promote democratic design and planning. It is also a research and visioning method that attempts to articulate community resident’s impressions of their present community to build consensus for its future (A. Nelessen, 1994). The survey consists of a photographic image, evaluation forms, optional questionnaires, and analysis techniques to understand and generate the results. The respondents in this case were from the immediate community; they were shown with the slide images of riverfront from their town and other places. Then, the respondents were asked to rate numerically these selected photographic images on a given scale. Once the results are generated, the visual preference based on the value recorded will be calculated.

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

9

Poor image -The current image of along the riverfront is unattractive thus display a poor image of Kuala Lumpur city.

Main RQ: How to create an attractive visual image of future Kuala Lumpur riverfront.

Exploratory Preference Study

Environmental Characteristic Of riverfront and the factor influence the preference

Weak/ Inappropriate identity- The image does not reflect the actual identity and character of Kuala Lumpur riverfront as a key public spaces in the city.

RQ1: What are the residents’ preference of the visual image of the Kuala Lumpur riverfront?

RQ2: What are the landscape elements that influence the imageability of the residents towards riverfront based on their visual preference?

RO1: To determine the residents’ preference of the visual images for future Kuala Lumpur riverfront

RO2: To identify the landscape elements that influence the visual image of the future Kuala Lumpur riverfront based on residents’ visual preference

Deficiency of Riverfront development Riverfront development

© COPYRIGHT

Participation in the Kuala Lumpur Draft City Plan 2020. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 70-75.

Abdul Latip, N. S. (2011). Contextual integration in waterfront development, (January). Retrieved from http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/2010/

Abdul Latip, N. S., Heath, T., & Liew, M. S. (2008). A Morphological Analysis of the Waterfront in City Centre, Kuala Lumpur. University of Nottingham , United Kingdom Petronas University of Technology , Malaysia [email protected], (Figure 1).

Abdul Latip N. S., Heath, T., Shamsuddin, S., & Vallyutham, K. (2008). The Contextual Integration and Sustainable Development of Kuala Lumpur ’ s City Centre Waterfront : An Evaluation of the Policies , Law and Guidelines, 1–7.

Abkar, M., S, M. K. M., Maulan, S., & Davoodi, S. R. (2011). Determining the visual preference of urban landscapes, 6(9), 1991–1997.

https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE11.171

Ahern, J. (2013). Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: The promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1203–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9799-z Al-Kodmany, K. (2002). Visualization Tools and Methods in Community Planning :

From Freehand Sketches. Journal Of Planning Literature, 17(2), 189–211.

https://doi.org/10.1177/088541202237335

Alberti, M., & Susskind, L. (1996). Managing Urban Sustainability, 9255(96), 213–

221.

Anuar, A. N. A., Ahmad, H., Jusoh, H., & Hussain, M. Y. (2013). Policy and tourism development strategy towards tourist friendly destination in Kuala Lumpur. Asian Social Science, 9(2), 180–190.

https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n2p180

Arthur ,E. S. (2006). Interior prospect and refuge . Perceptual and Motor Skills, 643–

653.

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

86

Asakawa, S., Yoshida, K., & Yabe, K. (2004). Perceptions of urban stream corridors within the greenway system of Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2–3), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00158-0 Balling, J. D., & Falk, J. H. (1982). Development of Visual Preference for Natural

Environments. Environment and Behavior, 14(1), 5–28.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916582141001

Banerjee, T. (2001). The future of public space: beyond invented streets and rein- vented places. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 9-24.

Baxter, J., & Kerr, G. (2010). The meaning and measurement of place identity and place image of towns and cities. European Regional Science Association Special ERSA, (August), 22.

Bond, S., & Mcdonagh, J. (2011). WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA : DO WE HAVE SUSTAINABLE GOVERNANCE ? Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 17(3), 336–356.

Booth, D. B., Karr, J. R., Schauman, S., Konrad, C. P., Morley, S. a, Larson, M. G.,

& Burges, S. J. (2005). October Reviving Urban Streams : Land Use , Hydrology. Journal Of The American Water Resources Association, 98195(5), 1351–1364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb01591.x

Bradley, R. M. (2010). Direct and indirect benefits of improving river quality:

Quantifying benefits and a case study of the River Klang, Malaysia.

Environmentalist, 30(3), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-010-9267-8

Buijs, A. E., Elands, B. H. M., & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.12.003

Bunnell, T., Barter, P., & Morshidi, S. (2002). Kuala Lumpur metropolitan area.

Cities, 19(5), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(02)00036-7 Cadman, D.M., Boyko, C. T. , Cooper, R. (2007). Sustainability & Stakeholders

within the Urban Design & Construction Process: Towards the Development of a “Best Practice” Framework, 1–40.

Cengiz, B. (2013). Urban River Landscapes, 551–586.

Chan, E., & Lee, Æ. G. K. L. (2016). Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban renewal projects, (November 2007).

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

87

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9089-3

Chang, T. C., & Huang, S. (2005). Recreating place, replacing memory: Creative destruction at the Singapore River. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 46(3), 267–280.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2005.00285.x

Che, Y., Yang, K., Chen, T., & Xu, Q. (2012). Assessing a riverfront rehabilitation project using the comprehensive index of public accessibility. Ecological Engineering, 40, 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.12.008 Cheung, D. M., & Tang, B. (2015). Social order, leisure, or tourist attraction? The

changing planning missions for waterfront space in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 47, 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.01.006 Crow, T., Brown, T., & De Young, R. (2006). The Riverside and Berwyn

experience: Contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscape, and their effects on people. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(3–

4), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.04.002

Daniel, T. C. (2001). Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4), 267–281.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00141-4

Dasgupta, N., Banaji, M. R., & Robert P. Abelson. (1999). Group Entitativity and Group Perception: Associations Between Physical Features and Psychological Judgment. Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 991–1003.

Deghati Najdi, M., Ismail, N. A., & Maulan, S. (2015). Visual preference dimensions of historic urban areas : The determinants for urban heritage conservation. Habitat International, 49, 115–125.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.05.003

Deghati Najd, M., Mohd Yunos, M. Y., Ismail, N. A., & Maulan, S. (2015). Kuala Lumpur Historic City Centre through the Lenses of International Tourist.

Advance in Environmental Biology, 9(March), 212–215.

Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia. (2012). Technical Talk on Greater KL / KV – The River of Life Project. The Institution of Engineer Malaysia, (May), 36–37.

De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research (5th ed.). Malaysia: Allen &

Unwin,

Dong, L. (2004). Waterfront Development : A Case Study of Dalian , China by.

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

88

Dunn, S. (2011). Kuala Lumpur River Of Life: Revitalizing The Urban Heart Of Klang River. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia, 27.

Ellsworth, J.C., (1982). Visual assessment of rivers and marshes: An examination of the relationship of visual units, perceptual variables and preference. Master's Thesis, Department of Landscape Architecture, Utah State University.

Ervin H. Zube, James L. Sell, & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape Perception:

Resesarch, Application and Theory., 9, 1–33.

ETP Annual Report. (2014). Greater Kuala Lumpur / Klang Valley Report.,36-37 Ewert, A., & Baker, D. (2001). Standing for Where You Sit: An Exploratory

Analysis of the Relationship between Academic Major and Environment

Beliefs. Environment and Behavior, (33), 687.

https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973197

Falk, J. H., & Balling, J. D. (2010). Evolutionary Influence on Human Landscape Preference. Environment and Behavior, 42(4), 479–493.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509341244

Gobster, P. H., & Westphal, L. M. (2004). The human dimensions of urban greenways: Planning for recreation and related experiences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2–3), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00162-2

Gonzalez, R., Kwan, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Culture and Aesthetic Preference : Comparing the Attention to Context of East Asians and Americans. Culture

and Aesthetic Preference, 34(9), 1260–1275.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208320555

Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson's Affordances, 101(2), 336–342.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate analysis.

Engle- wood: Prentice Hall International.

Hallak, R., Brown, G., & Lindsay, N. J. (2012). The Place Identity - Performance relationship among tourism entrepreneurs: A structural equation modelling

analysis. Tourism Management, 33(1), 143–154.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.013

Herzog, T. R. (1985). A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(85)80024-4

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

89

Herzog, T. R., & Bosley, P. J. (1992). Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80064-7

Herzog, T. R., & Herbert, E. J. (2000). Cultural and Developmental Comparisons of Landscape Perceptions and Preferences. Psychology.

Hesham, E. O., Ismail, S., & Hisyam, R. M. (2014). Residents ’ perception towards social interaction among Malaysian ethnic groups in urban park, 9–15.

Hong, H. X., & Nasar, J. L. (1999). Visual Preferences. Environment and Behavior, 31(5), 671–691.

Howell, S.E., Laska, S.B., 1992. The changing face of the environmental coalition.

Environment Behavior. 24, 134–144.

Hoyle, B. (1999). Scale and sustainability: The role of community groups in Canadian port-city waterfront change. Journal of Transport Geography, 7(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(98)00030-1

Huang, W. C., & Kao, S. K. (2014). Public–private partnerships during waterfront development process: The example of the world exposition. Ocean & Coastal Management, 92, 28-39.

Hussein, R. M. R. (2014). Sustainable Urban Waterfronts Using Sustainability Assessment Rating System. Architectural and Environmental Engineering, 8(4), 488–498.

Ismail, W. A. W., & Said, I. (2015). Integrating the community in urban design and planning of public spaces: a review in Malaysian cities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 357-364.

Jones, A., & Jones, A. W. (1998). Issues in Waterfront Regeneration : More Sobering Thoughts-A UK Perspective Issues in Waterfront, 7459(January).

https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459815987

Kaboudarahangi, M., Tahir, O. M., S, M. K. M., & Maulan, S. (2011). Preferred iconography in developing garden identity for Malaysia Preferred iconography in developing garden identity for Malaysia, (January).

Kaboudarahangi, M., Tahir, O. M., & S, M. K. M. (2013). Social Sciences &

Humanities, Factors Influencing Preferences of Garden Iconographies, 21(4), 1395–1409.

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

90

Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Association between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2

Kaplan, R. (1985). The Analysis Of Perception Via Preference: A Strategy For Studying How The Environment is Experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161–176.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental Preference: A Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21(5), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916589215001

Kaplan, R., & Talbot, J. F. (1988). Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: A review and recent findings. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(1–2), 107–

117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(88)90019-9

Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition: Environmental Preference from an Evolutionary Perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3–32.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916587191001

Karjalainen, E., & Tyrva, L. (2002). Visualization in forest landscape preference research : a Finnish perspective, 59.

Khirfan, L., & Momani, B. (2013). (Re)branding Amman: A “lived” city’s values, image and identity. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 9(1), 49–65.

https://doi.org/10.1057/pb.2013.1

Lekagul A. (2002). Toward preservation of the traditional marketpalce : A preference study of traditional and modern shopping environments in Bangkok Thailand., 41–100.

Lengen, C., & Kistemann, T. (2012). Sense of place and place identity: Review of neuroscientific evidence. Health and Place, 18(5), 1162–1171.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.01.012

Litton, R.B. Jr., Tetlow, R.J., 1974. Water and Landscape: An Aesthetic Overview of the Role of Water in the Landscape. Water Information Center, Port Washington, NY.

Longo, O. (2011). Waterfront landscapes of the 21st century. Architectures for travellers along the Water-City threshold.

Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics : is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder ?, 44.

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

91

Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2008). People needs in the urban landscape:

Analysis of Landscape And Urban Planning contributions. Landscape and

Urban Planning, 84(1), 7–19.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009

Maulan, S., S, M. K. M., & Pattrick A. Miller. (2006). Landscape Preference and Human Well-Being. Alam Cipta, 1(1), 25–32.

Mitra, A., & Lankford, S. (1999). Research methods in park, recreation, and leisure services: Sagamore Pub.

Moughtin, C. (2003). Urban design: street and square. Routledge.

Nasar, J. L. (1984). Visual preferences in urban street scenes: a cross-cultural comparisson Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.

Nasar, J. L. (1990). The Evaluative Image of the City. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 56(1), 41–53.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369008975742 perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. Journal of

Environmental Management, 90(1), 375–383.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013

Othman, A. R., & Majid, N. H. A. (2016). Urban River and Its Heritage Value: A river of life at Precinct 7, Kuala Lumpur. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 1(1), 58-67.

Owen, J. (1993). The water's edge: the space between buildings and water. Urban Waterside Regeneration: Problems and Prospects, 15-21.

Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (5th ed.). Allen & Unwin.

Pomeroy, J. W., & Green, M. B. (1983). Evaluation of Urban Riverscape Aesthetics in the Canadian Prairies. Journal of Environmental Management, 17(3), 263–

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

92

276.

Ramanujam, P. (2006). Prospect-Refuge Theory Revisited: A Search for Safety in Dynamic Public Spaces with a Preference to Design.

Rehan, R. M. (2014). Urban branding as an effective sustainability tool in urban

development. HBRC Journal, 10(2), 222–230.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.11.007

Reshape, W., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009). How Gen Y & Boomers. Harvard Business Review, 87(August), 71–77. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=41998019

&site=ehost-live

Roberts, B. H., & Chen, J. (2010). Urban sustainability experiments in Asia : Patterns and pathways Urban sustainability experiments in Asia : patterns and.

Environmental Science and Policy, 13(4), 312–325.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.011

Ryan, R. L. (1998). Local perceptions and values for a midwestern river corridor.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(2–4), 225–237.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046 (98)00089-9

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4th edition ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Shahhoseini, H., Bin, M. K. M. S., & Maulan, S. Bin. (2015). Landscape Architecture Visual preferences of small urban parks based on spatial configuration of place, 25(2).

Shamsuddin, S., Abdul Latip, N. S., Ujang, N., Sulaiman, A. B., & Alfath Alias, N.

(2012). How a city lost its waterfront: tracing the effects of policies on the sustainability of the Kuala Lumpur waterfront as a public place. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, (May 2014), 1–20.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.681635

Shamsuddin, S., Latip, N. S. A., & Sulaiman, A. B. (2008). Waterfront regeneration as a sustainable approach to city development in Malaysia. Transition on Ecology and the Environment, 117, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.2495/SC080051 Stamps Iii, A. E. (2004). Mystery , complexity , legibility and coherence : A

meta-analysis, 24, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00023-9 Stamps Iii, A. E., & Nasar, J. L. (1997). Design Review and Public Preferences:

Effects of Geographical Location, Public Consensus, Sensation Seeking, and

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

93

Architectural Styles. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(1), 11–32.

https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1996.0036

Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a Social Psychology of Place: Predicting Behavior from Place-Based Cognitions, Attitude, and Identity. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 561–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034005001 Strumse, E. (1996). Environmental Demographic Differences in the Visual

Preferences for Agragrian Landscapes in Western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 17–31.

Shafaghat, A., Mir, M., Keyvanfar, A., & Lamit, H. (2017). Sustainable riverscape preservation strategy framework using goal-oriented method : Case of historical heritage cities in Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 6(1), 143–159.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2017.03.003

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed.).

New York: Pearson

Thomas, R. Herzog, Kaplan, S., R. K. (1976). The Prediction of preference form familiar urban places. Environment and Behavior, 8(4), 627–645.

https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657684008

Tveit, M. S. (2009). Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference;

a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(9), 2882–2888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021

Ulrich R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9

Walpole, K., 2000. Regaining an interior world. Landscape Des. 289, 20–22.

Wright Wendel, H.E., Zarger, R.K., Mihelcic, J.R., 2012. Accessibility and usability: green space preferences, perceptions and barriers in a rapid urbanizing city in Latin America. Landsc. Urban Planning.

Williams, A., 1998. Therapeutic landscapes in holistic medicine. Social Science and Medicine 46 (9), 1193–1203

Wing, M. G. & Johnson, R. (2001) Quantifying forest visibility with spatial data, Environmental Management, 27, pp. 411 – 420.

Wu, J. (2008). Making the case for landscape ecology: an effective approach to

© COPYRIGHT

UPM

94

urban sustainability. Landscape Journal, 27, 41–50.

https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.27.1.41

Yamashita, S. (2002). Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: Use of Photo-Projective Method to compare child and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japanese river environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62(1), 3–17.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00093-2

Yang, B.-E., & Brown, T. J. (1992). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Preferences for Landscape Styles and Landscape Elements. Environment and Behavior, 24(4), 471–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916592244003

Yassin, A. B., Bond, P. S., Prof, A., Mcdonagh, J., Onn, H., & Zealand, N. (2010).

The Effectiveness of The Riverfront Development Guideline in Malaysia., 1–

19.

Yassin, A. B., Bond, S., & McDonagh, J. (2011). Developing guidelines for riverfront developments for Malaysia. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 17(4), 511–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/14445921.2011.11104340 Yassin, A. M., Bond, S., & McDonagh, J. (2012). Principles for sustainable

riverfront development for Malaysia. Journal of Techno Social, 4(1).

Yuen, B., & Hien, W. N. (2005). Resident perceptions and expectations of rooftop gardens in Singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning, 73(4), 263–276.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.08.001

Zhang, L. I. (2002). An Evaluation of an Urban Riverfront Park, (May).

Zheng, B., Zhang, Y., & Chen, J. (2011). Preference to home landscape: Wildness or neatness? Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(1), 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.006

In document INSTITUTO DE LA PAZ Y LOS CONFLICTOS (página 153-158)