Landscape Metrics and Visual Topology in the Analysis of Landscape Preference

Recognition of the value of landscapes, environmentally, economically, and to quality of life—and, importantly, the embedding of these concepts in legislation such as the European Landscape Convention—has led to the need for an ‘objective’ assessment of these values and the potential impact of changes to them. But studies relating preference information to metric analysis of planimetric viewsheds have so far provided only limited explanation of preference. It has been suggested that this is due to the effect of perspective on the visual topology of the view generating different metrics in perspective from those on the flat map. The completion of the Pan European Study under the EU Framework 5 Visulands project provided a large sample of preference responses to a limited number of computer-generated simple landscape scenarios. As such this is an ideal opportunity to test the significance of perspective on metric correlation with preference. This paper considers the degree to which metrics are altered by a panoramic or viewshed analysis, and the significance of this for any correlation with the preference scores. The implications for the role of the respective media in planning are considered, including that of 3D visualisation as a means for eliciting opinion on landscape preference.

[1]  David Miller,et al.  A method for estimating changes in the visibility of land cover , 2001 .

[2]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Experiential approaches to perception response in virtual worlds , 2001 .

[3]  Shimon Ullman,et al.  Computation of pattern invariance in brain-like structures , 1999, Neural Networks.

[4]  Gordon Walker,et al.  Renewable energy and the public , 1995 .

[5]  Caroline M. Hagerhall,et al.  CONSENSUS IN LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE JUDGEMENTS , 2001 .

[6]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Experience of Nature , 2022, Why Conserve Nature?.

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

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

[9]  G. Fry,et al.  Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[10]  Philip Paar,et al.  Landscape visualizations: Applications and requirements of 3D visualization software for environmental planning , 2006, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[11]  H. D. Patterson,et al.  Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal , 1971 .

[12]  T. Brown,et al.  Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands , 1986 .

[13]  J. Mansvelt,et al.  Criteria for the humanity realm: psychology and physiognomy and cultural heritage , 1999 .

[14]  E. Shafer,et al.  Natural landscape preferences: a predictive model , 1969 .

[15]  T. Daniel Measuring the quality of the natural environment: A psychophysical approach. , 1990 .

[16]  N. Thrower,et al.  The History of Mapping. (Book Reviews: Maps and Man. An Examination of Cartography in Relation to Culture and Civilization) , 1972 .

[17]  J. Palmer Using spatial metrics to predict scenic perception in a changing landscape: Dennis, Massachusetts , 2004 .

[18]  Andrew A. Lovett,et al.  Rural landscape visualisation from GIS databases: a comparison of approaches, options and problems , 2002 .

[19]  T. Brown,et al.  Context effects in perceived environmental quality assessment: Scene selection and landscape quality ratings , 1987 .

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

[21]  Derek Thompson,et al.  Fundamentals of spatial information systems , 1992, A.P.I.C. series.