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.

在本文中，我们比较了两种传统的审美景观评估模型，心理物理模型和心理模型。我们的目标是确定两个理论框架的接近程度以及它们在主题和空间上产生相似结果的程度。我们使用基于地理信息系统使用的映射程序进行心理物理模型，并通过公共参与地理信息系统进行心理模型，并使用空间分析技术对两者进行比较。结果表明，这两个模型产生了不同的结果，尽管两者在定位正面评级方面往往一致。心理模型产生更多更好的评分。此外，还揭示了用户访问的地点与具有最佳评估的地点之间的相关性。两种模型之间出现分歧的主要原因是它们的基本原理不同。这两个模型都不能被理解为另一个模型的替代品，而是相互补充，因为它们共同产生了无法单独提供的信息。