Evaluation of Data Visualisation Options for Land-Use Policy and Decision Making in Response to Climate Change

Decision makers are facing unprecedented challenges in addressing the likely impacts of climate change on land use. Changes to climate can affect the long-term viability of certain industries in a particular geographical location. Government policies in relation to provision of infrastructure, management of water, and incentives for revegetation need to be planned. Those responsible for key decisions are unlikely to be expert in all aspects of climate change or its implications, and thus require scientific data communicated to them in an easily understood manner with the scope to explore the implications. It is often felt that a range of visualisation techniques, both abstract and realistic, can assist in this communication. However, their effectiveness is seldom evaluated. In this paper we review the literature on processes for the evaluation of visualisation tools and representations. From this review an evaluation framework is developed and applied through an experiment in visualisation of climate change, land suitability, and related data using a variety of tools and representational options to advance our knowledge of which visualisation technique works, when, and why. Our region of interest was the southwestern part of Victoria, Australia. Both regional and local data and their implications were presented to end users through a series of visualisation products. The survey group included policy makers, decision makers, extension staff, and researchers. They explored the products and answered both specific and exploratory questions. At the end of the evaluation session their knowledge and attitudes were compared with those at the commencement and they were also asked to assess the visualisation options subjectively. The findings relate to both the visualisation options themselves and the process of evaluation. The survey group was particularly keen to have access to multiple interactive tools and the ability to see scenarios side-by-side within a deeper informational context. A number of procedural recommendations for further evaluation were developed, including the need for consistency in approach among researchers in order to develop more generalisable findings.

[1]  Andrew A. Lovett,et al.  GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: Defining 'sufficient' realism for environmental decision-making , 2003 .

[2]  Christopher Pettit,et al.  Identifying strengths and weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communication of future alternatives , 2011 .

[3]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Beyond Usability: Evaluation Aspects of Visual Analytic Environments , 2006, 2006 IEEE Symposium On Visual Analytics Science And Technology.

[4]  I. Bishop,et al.  Simplifying Climate Change Communication: An Application of Data Visualisation at the Regional and Local Scale , 2013 .

[5]  I. Bishopa,et al.  Subjective responses to simulated and real environments : a comparison , 2003 .

[6]  James A. Russell,et al.  Adaptation level and the affective appraisal of environments , 1984 .

[7]  J. McGrath Methodology matters: doing research in the behavioral and social sciences , 1995 .

[8]  Olaf Schroth,et al.  Tools for the understanding of spatio-temporal climate scenarios in local planning: Kimberley (BC) case study , 2009 .

[9]  Stephen R.J. Sheppard,et al.  Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualization , 2001 .

[10]  T. Daniel,et al.  Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method , 1976 .

[11]  Sven Fuchs,et al.  Evaluating cartographic design in flood risk mapping , 2009 .

[12]  Victor Sposito,et al.  Developing a multi-scale visualisation framework for use in climate change response , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

[13]  James Dean Brown,et al.  Testing in language programs , 1996 .

[14]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Scenario Chooser: An interactive approach to eliciting public landscape preferences , 2012 .

[15]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison , 2003 .

[16]  Catherine Plaisant,et al.  The challenge of information visualization evaluation , 2004, AVI.

[17]  J. Whitney Case Study Research , 1999 .

[18]  Mike Pearson,et al.  Visualizing Uncertainty About the Future , 2022 .

[19]  Randy H. Gimblett,et al.  VISUAL SIMULATION: A USER'S GUIDE FOR ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, AND PLANNERS , 1990, Landscape Journal.

[20]  Claire Knight Visualisation Effectiveness , 2001 .

[21]  Eckart Lange,et al.  The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes , 2001 .

[22]  Alan M. MacEachren,et al.  Exploratory cartographic visualization: advancing the agenda , 1997 .

[23]  T. Daniel,et al.  REPRESENTATIONAL VALIDITY OF LANDSCAPE VISUALIZATIONS: THE EFFECTS OF GRAPHICAL REALISM ON PERCEIVED SCENIC BEAUTY OF FOREST VISTAS , 2001 .

[24]  Shahbaz Khan,et al.  Managing climate risks in Australia: options for water policy and irrigation management , 2008 .

[25]  J. L. Fridley,et al.  The validity of computer-generated graphic images of forest landscape , 1995 .

[26]  Alan J. Dix,et al.  An explorative analysis of user evaluation studies in information visualisation , 2006, BELIV '06.