The ethics of Google Earth: crossing thresholds from spatial data to landscape visualisation.

'Virtual globe' software systems such as Google Earth are growing rapidly in popularity as a way to visualise and share 3D environmental data. Scientists and environmental professionals, many of whom are new to 3D modeling and visual communications, are beginning routinely to use such techniques in their work. While the appeal of these techniques is evident, with unprecedented opportunities for public access to data and collaborative engagement over the web, are there nonetheless risks in their widespread usage when applied in areas of the public interest such as planning and policy-making? This paper argues that the Google Earth phenomenon, which features realistic imagery of places, cannot be dealt with only as a question of spatial data and geographic information science. The virtual globe type of visualisation crosses several key thresholds in communicating scientific and environmental information, taking it well beyond the realm of conventional spatial data and geographic information science, and engaging more complex dimensions of human perception and aesthetic preference. The realism, perspective views, and social meanings of the landscape visualisations embedded in virtual globes invoke not only cognition but also emotional and intuitive responses, with associated issues of uncertainty, credibility, and bias in interpreting the imagery. This paper considers the types of risks as well as benefits that may exist with participatory uses of virtual globes by experts and lay-people. It is illustrated with early examples from practice and relevant themes from the literature in landscape visualisation and related disciplines such as environmental psychology and landscape planning. Existing frameworks and principles for the appropriate use of environmental visualisation methods are applied to the special case of widely accessible, realistic 3D and 4D visualisation systems such as Google Earth, in the context of public awareness-building and agency decision-making on environmental issues. Relevant principles are suggested which lend themselves to much-needed evaluation of risks and benefits of virtual globe systems. Possible approaches for balancing these benefits and risks include codes of ethics, software design, and metadata templates.

[1]  M. Monmonier How to Lie with Maps , 1991 .

[2]  Brian Orland,et al.  Considering virtual worlds as representations of landscape realities and as tools for landscape planning , 2001 .

[3]  Donald Appleyard,et al.  Understanding Professional Media , 1977 .

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

[5]  Ervin H. Zube,et al.  Landscape perception: Research, application and theory , 1982 .

[6]  Dipika Jain Research technical report , 2008 .

[7]  Zhong-Ren Peng,et al.  Internet GIS for Public Participation , 2001 .

[8]  Declan Butler,et al.  Virtual globes: The web-wide world , 2006, Nature.

[9]  Ervin H. Zube,et al.  Perceptual Landscape Simulations: History and Prospect , 1987, Landscape Journal.

[10]  Brian Orland Data visualization techniques in environmental management: a workshop , 1992 .

[11]  George E. McKechnie Simulation Techniques in Environmental Psychology , 1977 .

[12]  J. R Wherrett Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research , 1999 .

[13]  R P Lederman,et al.  Systematic Data Collection: I , 1994, MCN. The American journal of maternal child nursing.

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

[15]  Susanne C. Moser,et al.  Impact assessments and policy responses to sea-level rise in three US states: An exploration of human-dimension uncertainties , 2005 .

[16]  Stephen R.J. Sheppard,et al.  Participatory decision support for sustainable forest management: a framework for planning with local communities at the landscape level in Canada , 2005 .

[17]  Stephen J Sheppard,et al.  Visual Simulation: A Users Guide for Architects, Engineers, and Planners , 1989 .

[18]  A. G. Mcquillan,et al.  HONESTY AND FORESIGHT IN COMPUTER VISUALIZATIONS , 1998 .

[19]  Stephen R.J. Sheppard,et al.  Culture and communication: Can landscape visualization improve forest management consultation with indigenous communities? , 2006 .

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

[21]  Fenguangzhai Song CD , 1992 .

[22]  Kyu Shik Oh,et al.  A perceptual evaluation of computer-based landscape simulations , 1994 .

[23]  R. Zajonc On the primacy of affect. , 1984 .

[24]  R. Sieber Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework , 2006 .

[25]  Alan M. MacEachren,et al.  How Maps Work - Representation, Visualization, and Design , 1995 .

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

[27]  Michael Barndt,et al.  A model for evaluating public participation GIS , 2002 .

[28]  Julian Evans,et al.  Encyclopedia of forest sciences , 2004 .

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

[30]  Alan M. MacEachren,et al.  Cartography and GIS: extending collaborative tools to support virtual teams , 2001 .

[31]  Cam Campbell,et al.  The digital workshop: exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participatory planning. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[32]  D Biljana,et al.  The role of visualization in forest planning , 2008 .

[33]  Christopher Young,et al.  Visualization in landscape and environmental planning , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[34]  Daniel Weiner,et al.  Community participation and geographic information systems. , 2002 .

[35]  Stephen R.J. Sheppard Validity, reliability and ethics in visualization , 2005 .

[36]  J. Cantrill,et al.  Place and the Promise of Conservation Psychology , 2003 .

[37]  Edward R. Tufte,et al.  Envisioning Information , 1990 .

[38]  Irwin Altman,et al.  Human Behavior and Environment , 1977, Springer US.

[39]  J. L. Lewis,et al.  Culture and the forested landscape : inter and intra-cultural perceptions of modified forest landscapes , 2006 .

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

[41]  A. MacEachren Cartography and GIS: facilitating collaboration , 2000 .

[42]  William Winn,et al.  Learning Oceanography from a Computer Simulation Compared with Direct Experience at Sea. , 2006 .

[43]  S. Sheppard Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour , 2005 .

[44]  Ian D. Bishop,et al.  Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning : Technology and Applications , 2005 .

[45]  R. Rosenfeld Nature , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[46]  B. Sherman,et al.  Glimpses of Heaven, Visions of Hell: Virtual Reality and Its Implications , 1992 .

[47]  Kheir Al-Kodmany,et al.  Visualization Tools and Methods in Community Planning: From Freehand Sketches to Virtual Reality , 2002 .

[48]  Z-R Peng An Assessment Framework for the Development of Internet GIS , 1999 .

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

[50]  Stephen R.J. Sheppard,et al.  Bridging the sustainability gap with landscape visualisation in community visioning hubs , 2006 .

[51]  D. Luymes The rhetoric of visual simulation in forest design: some research directions. , 2001 .