The Impact of Visual Mitigation Strategies on Visitor Visual Satisfaction in Mountain Resort Design: A Case Study of Pank Resort, Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Volume 12 , Issue 3 , June 2026 , Pages 65-85

Authors

Khuncha Salam 1 ; Raz Saeed Faraj 2

1 university of sulaimani ,college of engineering , architecture department

2 University of Sulaimani , College of Engineering, Archtectural Engineering Department

DOI logo 10.17656/sjes.10217

Keywords

Abstract

Mountain resorts rely on the quality of visual views as a key part of the visitor experience; however, development in sensitive mountainous environments may weaken this value when buildings, roads, service elements, and other built interventions become visually dominant. As a result, it remains unclear how implemented visual mitigation strategies contribute to visitors’ emotional and visual satisfaction in existing mountain resorts. This paper investigates this relationship using Pank Resort in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq as a case study. A mixed-method case-study approach was adopted, combining checklist-based visual assessment, field observation, spatial documentation, and visitor questionnaire data. First, visual mitigation strategies were assessed using field observations, site plans, contour maps, satellite imagery, and visual documentation to evaluate visibility conditions, vegetation cover, terrain use, skyline exposure, and built-form integration. Second, visitor visual satisfaction was measured through a field questionnaire administered to 70 resort visitors. The questionnaire included nine emotional and perceptual questions rated on a five-point Likert scale, followed by multiple-choice questions identifying the visual factors influencing visitors’ evaluations. The results indicate that visual mitigation strategies do not contribute equally to visual satisfaction. Terrain-responsive siting, skyline subordination, layered planting, natural materials, and landscape integration showed stronger relevance to calmness, safety, and visual attractiveness, while some architectural detailing and surface-treatment strategies were less consistently perceived. The study provides practical evidence for visually sensitive mountain resort design in the Kurdistan Region.

References

  1. Ahmed, B. J., & Jimenez-Bescos, C. (2020). An analysis on the benefits of vernacular architecture to design Passivhaus buildings in Kurdistan. In Proceedings of the 54th International Conference of the Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA) (pp. 151–160).
  2. Bishop, I. D., & Miller, D. R. (2007). Visual assessment of offshore wind turbines: The influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables. Renewable Energy, 32(5), 814–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.03.009
  3. Brundage Mountain Resort. (2022). Brundage Mountain master development plan. Brundage Mountain Resort.
  4. Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation method (Research Paper RM-167). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
  5. Dosen, A. S., & Ostwald, M. J. (2016). Evidence for prospect–refuge theory: A meta-analysis of the findings of environmental preference research. City, Territory and Architecture, 3, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40410-016-0033-1
  6. 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
  7. [7] Ismael, A. K., & Hamad, H. A. (2013). The influence of the landscape on the typology of traditional houses in Kurdistan mountainous villages. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(22), 71–79.
  8. Kaplan, R. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
  9. Kaplan, S. (1987). Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource (pp. 241–248). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
  10. Kaymaz, I. C. (2012). Landscape perception. In M. Özyavuz (Ed.), Landscape planning (pp. 251–276). InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/38998
  11. Khoshnaw, R. (2019). Sustainable construction in Kurdish vernacular architecture. Periodica Polytechnica Architecture, 50(2), 178–185.
  12. Landscape Institute, & Instiute of Environmental Management and Assessment. (2013). Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  13. Menatti, L., & Casado da Rocha, A. (2016). Landscape and health: Connecting psychology, aesthetics, and philosophy through the concept of affordance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 571. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00571
  14. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (2018). Landslide mitigation strategies. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
  15. Nasar, J. L. (1998). The evaluative image of the city. Sage Publications.
  16. Nature Iraq. (2015). Kurdistan land use manual. Nature Iraq.
  17. Nooraddin, H. (1997). Kurdish vernacular architecture. In P. Oliver (Ed.), Encyclopedia of vernacular architecture of the world (Vol. 2, pp. 1589–1590). Cambridge University Press.
  18. Olakanmi, J. A., & Ayeni, D. A. (2019). Achieving aesthetics using landscape design in resort environments. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 7(9), 707–713.
  19. Oberto Oberti Architecture + Urban Design Inc. (2006). Crystal Mountain resort design guidelines. Government of British Columbia.
  20. Palmer, J. F. (2019). Literature review for the Chesapeake scenic landscape impact assessment methodology. Scenic Quality Consultants.
  21. Raof, B. Y. (2018). Developing vernacular passive cooling strategies in Kurdistan–Iraq. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 7(3), 13–20.
  22. Raof, B. Y., Bahaadin, S. D., & Rasul, H. Q. (2020). The thermal performance of vernacular houses as an identity of Kurdish traditional architecture. Kurdistan Journal of Applied Research, 5(1), 236–257.
  23. Rasul, H. Q., & Ahmed, A. I. (2018). Nature and physical configuration: A study of topographical influences on the physical configuration of mountain settlements in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. In Cities’ identity through architecture and arts (1st ed.). Routledge.
  24. Stamps, A. E. (2000). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  25. Suisted, C. (2013). The last resort: Building big architecture in big landscapes [Master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington].
  26. Tetherow, T., & McCarty, J. (2023). Visual resources in the practice of landscape architecture. The Field.
  27. Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269
  28. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420–421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402
Statistics
  • Article view42
  • Downloads0
  • First online14 June 2026

  • RIS
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • Mendeley
  • APA (7th edition)
  • MLA (9th edition)
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • Vancouver