Does rated visual landscape quality match visual features? An analysis for renewable energy landscapes

Abstract Finding the “right” sites for developing renewable energy systems (RES) is one of the major challenges in planning strategies for energy transitions. The visibility aspects of such infrastructure are important factors that explain local opposition. Classical visibility and viewshed analyses of RES disregard people’s perceptions and estimations of new infrastructure. To address this void, we demonstrate an approach that combines rated visual landscape qualities with measured visual features. In doing so, we established visual stimuli with systematically controlled visual impact scenarios featuring the use of renewables in different landscape types. The study investigated how ratings of landscape qualities are affected by landscape changes stemming from RES. We also identified measurable visual features that might help to operationalize landscape qualities. Finally, we intended to improve the understand of how rated landscape qualities lead to preferences for different RES visual impact scenarios. Our results showed that rated coherence is strongly influenced by renewable energy infrastructure, whereas complexity ratings are affected mainly by variations in landscape types. These findings let us to conclude that the visual understanding and visual connectedness between energy systems and surrounding landscapes are core drivers of people’s visual preferences for landscapes altered with RES. Considering landscape qualities within impact assessments of RES can augment our grasp of how the visual character of a landscape changes through renewable energy infrastructure.

[1]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Co-production in distributed generation: renewable energy and creating space for fitting infrastructure within landscapes , 2018 .

[2]  T. Kuemmerle,et al.  The driving forces of landscape change in Europe: a systematic review of the evidence , 2016 .

[3]  Charles R. Warren,et al.  ‘Green On Green’: Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland , 2005 .

[4]  J. Lucio,et al.  Relationship between landscape visual attributes and spatial pattern indices: A test study in Mediterranean-climate landscapes , 2006 .

[5]  Maria Johansson,et al.  Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of attitudes and visual perception , 2007 .

[6]  Martin J. Pasqualetti,et al.  Morality, Space, and the Power of Wind‐Energy Landscapes , 2000 .

[7]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[8]  M. Semenou,et al.  Preference data analysis using a paired comparison model , 1997 .

[9]  Kevin McGarigal,et al.  Parsimony in landscape metrics: Strength, universality, and consistency , 2008 .

[10]  C. Geitner,et al.  Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts , 2015 .

[11]  Deborah Talmi,et al.  Emotional response to images of wind turbines: A psychophysiological study of their visual impact on the landscape , 2015 .

[12]  Tue Tjur,et al.  Coefficients of Determination in Logistic Regression Models—A New Proposal: The Coefficient of Discrimination , 2009 .

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

[14]  Jiquan Chen,et al.  Preference to home landscape: wildness or neatness? , 2011 .

[15]  P. Devine‐Wright,et al.  Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study , 2010 .

[16]  Marc G. Berman,et al.  Image Feature Types and Their Predictions of Aesthetic Preference and Naturalness , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[17]  J. Kuiper,et al.  Landscape quality based upon diversity, coherence and continuity: Landscape planning at different planning-levels in the River area of The Netherlands , 1998 .

[18]  David Uzzell,et al.  PLACE AND IDENTITY PROCESSES , 1996 .

[19]  L. Steg,et al.  Environmental Psychology: An Introduction , 2012 .

[20]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Visual assessment of off-shore wind turbines: The influence of distance, contrast, movement and social variables , 2007 .

[21]  Franz Makeschin,et al.  Assessment of landscape aesthetics—Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty , 2013 .

[22]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective , 1989 .

[23]  Felix Kienast,et al.  Conflicts between decentralized renewable electricity production and landscape services – a spatially-explicit quantitative assessment for Switzerland , 2017 .

[24]  Shinichi Nakagawa,et al.  A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models , 2013 .

[25]  R. Simons,et al.  Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments , 1991 .

[26]  R. Ulrich.  Human responses to vegetation and landscapes , 1986 .

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

[28]  B. Mathiesen,et al.  100% Renewable energy systems, climate mitigation and economic growth , 2011 .

[29]  J. Singer,et al.  Likelihood ratio tests for variance components in linear mixed models , 2009 .

[30]  Petra Schweizer-Ries,et al.  Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany , 2008 .

[31]  U. Wissen Hayek,et al.  Evaluating a visual-acoustic simulation for wind park assessment , 2016 .

[32]  Felix Kienast,et al.  Evaluation of Landscape Change by Different Social Groups , 2008 .

[33]  J. Frick,et al.  The Swiss Landscape Monitoring Program – A comprehensive indicator set to measure landscape change , 2015 .

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

[35]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept , 2007 .

[36]  D. Pearson,et al.  Unearthing the picturesque: The validity of the preference matrix as a measure of landscape aesthetics , 2014 .

[37]  Víctor-Andrés Cloquell-Ballester,et al.  Aesthetic impact assessment of solar power plants : An objective and a subjective approach , 2009 .

[38]  C. Cela-Conde,et al.  Predicting beauty: fractal dimension and visual complexity in art. , 2011, British journal of psychology.

[39]  M. Pasqualetti,et al.  The Renewable Energy Landscape : Preserving Scenic Values in our Sustainable Future , 2016 .

[40]  Erich Tasser,et al.  Using conjoint analysis to gain deeper insights into aesthetic landscape preferences , 2019, Ecological Indicators.

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

[42]  G. Fry,et al.  The ecology of visual landscapes: Exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators , 2009 .

[43]  Jakub Nowosad,et al.  landscapemetrics : an open‐source R tool to calculate landscape metrics , 2019, Ecography.

[44]  Michael C. Hout,et al.  Is the preference of natural versus man-made scenes driven by bottom–up processing of the visual features of nature? , 2015, Front. Psychol..

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

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

[47]  Alain Nadaï,et al.  Introduction: Landscapes of Energies , 2010 .

[48]  A. Hastings,et al.  Synergies and trade‐offs between renewable energy expansion and biodiversity conservation – a cross‐national multifactor analysis , 2016 .

[49]  J. Englund,et al.  Do Humans Really Prefer Semi-open Natural Landscapes? A Cross-Cultural Reappraisal , 2018, Front. Psychol..

[50]  Grigori Yourganov,et al.  The Perception of Naturalness Correlates with Low-Level Visual Features of Environmental Scenes , 2014, PloS one.

[51]  Colin G. Ellard,et al.  Cognitive and affective responses to natural scenes: Effects of low level visual properties on preference, cognitive load and eye-movements , 2015 .

[52]  Víctor-Andrés Cloquell-Ballester,et al.  Development and validation of a multicriteria indicator for the assessment of objective aesthetic impact of wind farms , 2009 .

[53]  G. Garnero,et al.  The territorial and landscape impacts of photovoltaic systems: Definition of impacts and assessment of the glare risk , 2009 .

[54]  Yuanzhen Li,et al.  Measuring visual clutter. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[55]  A E Stamps,et al.  Sex, Complexity, and Preferences for Residential Facades , 1999, Perceptual and motor skills.

[56]  Bruce T. Milne,et al.  Indices of landscape pattern , 1988, Landscape Ecology.

[57]  Andrew Lothian,et al.  Scenic Perceptions of the Visual Effects of Wind Farms on South Australian Landscapes , 2008 .

[58]  Paul H. Gobster,et al.  An Ecological Aesthetic for Forest Landscape Management , 1999, Landscape Journal.

[59]  Maarten Wolsink,et al.  Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’ , 2007 .

[60]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[61]  Christoph Hölscher,et al.  EVE: A Framework for Experiments in Virtual Environments , 2016, Spatial Cognition.

[62]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

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

[64]  S. Kaplan.  Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition , 1987 .

[65]  Vendula Betakova,et al.  Wind turbines location: How many and how far? , 2015 .

[66]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis , 1992 .

[67]  E. Strumse.  DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES IN THE VISUAL PREFERENCES FOR AGRARIAN LANDSCAPES IN WESTERN NORWAY , 1996 .

[68]  James F. Palmer,et al.  Reliability of Rating Visible Landscape Qualities , 2000, Landscape Journal.

[69]  Alexandre N. Tuch,et al.  Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users' experience, physiology, performance, and memory , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[70]  T. Little,et al.  The latent structure of landscape perception: A mean and covariance structure modeling approach , 2008 .

[71]  Simon Bell,et al.  Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process , 1999 .

[72]  F. Kienast,et al.  Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty – a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment , 1999, Landscape Ecology.

[73]  U. Wissen Hayek,et al.  Physiological and behavioral reactions to renewable energy systems in various landscape types , 2021, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

[74]  Elizabeth Brabec,et al.  Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics , 2012 .

[75]  Thorbjörn Laike,et al.  Investigations of Human EEG Response to Viewing Fractal Patterns , 2008, Perception.

[76]  Rob Kuper,et al.  Evaluations of landscape preference, complexity, and coherence for designed digital landscape models , 2017 .