Measuring Visible Space to Assess Landscape Openness

Abstract This paper presents and discusses a procedure for measuring landscape openness, which is an important characteristic of the visual landscape. The procedure aims to ensure the quality of descriptions of landscape openness while being flexible enough to produce descriptions suitable for various purposes. Geo-data and a Geographic Information System (GIS) are used to develop the procedure, which consists of five steps: 1) select road network and apply sampling strategy; 2) merge terrain and topographic datasets and create contour lines; 3) identify visual limitations; 4) compute visible space; and 5) select and calculate variables. The procedure is applied to a case study to illustrate the possibilities. The paper includes a discussion of the realism, generality, precision and sensitivity of the procedure. The balance between a high degree of realism and a high degree of generality ensures a procedure which can be used by policy-makers and planners for a wide range of purposes at various levels.

[1]  K. Ball,et al.  Visual attention problems as a predictor of vehicle crashes in older drivers. , 1993, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  Terry J. Brown,et al.  Environmental Preference , 1989 .

[3]  P. Godfrey‐Smith.  Theory and reality : an introduction to the philosophy of science , 2003 .

[4]  D. Wascher,et al.  European landscape character areas : typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes , 2005 .

[5]  G. Fry,et al.  Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure , 2006 .

[6]  J. F. Coeterier,et al.  Dominant attributes in the perception and evaluation of the Dutch landscape , 1996 .

[7]  S. Ananiadou,et al.  Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science): Introduction , 2005 .

[8]  Åsa Ode,et al.  Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character , 2006 .

[9]  R. Millward,et al.  The Experience of Landscape , 1988 .

[10]  G Franz,et al.  An empirical approach to the experience of architectural space in VR - Exploring relations between features and affective appraisals of rectangular interiors , 2003, eCAADe proceedings.

[11]  M. Germino,et al.  Estimating visual properties of Rocky Mountain landscapes using GIS , 2001 .

[12]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Prediction of scenic beauty using mapped data and geographic information systems , 1994 .

[13]  Jan Malte Wiener,et al.  Isovists as a Means to Predict Spatial Experience and Behavior , 2004, Spatial Cognition.

[14]  R. Ulrich.  Visual landscapes and psychological well‐being , 1979 .

[15]  Alistair N. R. Law,et al.  The Mapping of Terrain Visibility , 1997 .

[16]  G. Tress,et al.  Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research , 2001 .

[17]  Veerle Van Eetvelde,et al.  Indicators for assessing changing landscape character of cultural landscapes in Flanders (Belgium). , 2009 .

[18]  R. Levins.  The strategy of model building in population biology , 1966 .

[19]  J. F. Coeterier.  Cues for the Perception of the Size of Space in Landscapes , 1994 .

[20]  W Hamula,et al.  Site planning. , 1997, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[21]  Carl Steinitz,et al.  Landscape Visibility Computation: Necessary, but Not Sufficient , 2003 .

[22]  M. Tveit.  Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[23]  van der Laan,et al.  Architectonic Space: Fifteen Lessons on the Disposition of the Human Habitat , 1983 .

[24]  Sabine Timpf,et al.  On the assessment of landmark salience for human navigation , 2007, Cognitive Processing.

[25]  David A. Atchison,et al.  Optics of the Human Eye , 2023 .

[26]  H. Palang,et al.  Landscapes in change—opposing attitudes in Saaremaa, Estonia , 2004 .

[27]  J. Clement,et al.  Monitoren van kleine landschapselementen met IKONOS satellietbeelden , 2003 .

[28]  Arthur E. Stamps,et al.  Spaciousness and Boundary Roughness , 2006 .

[29]  M. Benedikt,et al.  To Take Hold of Space: Isovists and Isovist Fields , 1979 .

[30]  P. Godfrey‐Smith.  Theory and Reality , 2003 .

[31]  Stephen Ervin,et al.  Landscape Modeling: Digital Techniques for Landscape Visualization , 2001 .

[32]  M. Antrop.  Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe , 2004 .

[33]  D. van der Horst.  A Prototype Method to Map the Potential Visual-Amenity Benefits of New Farm Woodlands , 2006 .

[34]  Arnold Bregt,et al.  Three Sampling Methods for Visibility Measures of Landscape Perception , 2007, COSIT.

[35]  A. Scott.  Assessing Public Perception of Landscape: From Practice to Policy , 2003 .

[36]  G. Fry.  Culture and nature versus culture or nature , 2004 .

[37]  M. J. Vroom.  The perception of dimensions of space and levels of infrastructure and its application in landscape planning. , 1986 .

[38]  A. Stamps.  Mystery, complexity, legibility and coherence: A meta-analysis , 2004 .

[39]  Werner Nohl,et al.  Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception–preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics , 2001 .

[40]  John P. Felleman,et al.  Foundations for visual project analysis , 1986 .