Realism and selectivity in data-driven visualisations: A process for developing viewer-oriented landscape surrogates

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 81, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 213-224

  Williams, Kathryn J H ^a   Ford, Rebecca M ^a   Bishop, Ian D ^a   Loiterton, Daniel ^a   Hickey, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b FORESTRY TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Landscape assessment; Realism; Social cognition; Validity; Visual simulation

Indexed keywords

GRAPHIC METHODS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; PHOTOMAPPING; SOCIAL ASPECTS; USER INTERFACES;

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENTS; REALISM; SOCIAL COGNITION; VISUAL SIMULATION;

URBAN PLANNING;

LANDSCAPE; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; VISUALIZATION;

EID: 34249035834     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.008     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Appleton K., and Lovett A. GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: defining 'sufficient' realism for environmental decision-making. Landsc. Urban Plann. 65 (2003) 117-131
2. Bell S. Can a fresh look at the psychology of perception and the philosophy of aesthetics help contribute to the better management of forested landscapes?. In: Sheppard S.R.J., and Harshaw H.W. (Eds). Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics (2001), CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon 125-148
3. Bergen S.D., Ulbright C.A., Fridley J.L., and Ganter M.A. The validity of computer-generated graphic images of forest landscapes. J. Environ. Psychol. 15 (1995) 135-146
4. Bishop I., and Leahy P.N.A. Assessing the visual impact of development proposals: the validity of computer simulations. Landsc. J. 8 (1989) 92-100
5. Bishop I., and Rohrmann B. Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison. Landsc. Urban Plann. 65 (2003) 261-277
6. Bishop I.D., Ford R., Loiterton D., and Williams K. Studying the acceptability of forest management practices using visual simulation of forest regrowth. In: Bishop I.D., and Lange E. (Eds). Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning: Technology and Applications (2005), Taylor and Francis, London 112-119
7. Bishop I.D., Hull R.B., and Stock C. Supporting personal world-views in an envisioning system. Environ. Model. Software 20 (2005) 1459-1468
8. Canter D. The purposive evaluation of place: a facet approach. Environ. Behav. 15 6 (1983) 659-698
9. Canter D. Understanding, assessing and acting in places: is an integrative framework possible?. In: Garling T., and Evans G. (Eds). Environment Cognition and Action (1991), Oxford University Press, New York, NY 191-209
10. Daniel T., and Meitner M.J. Representational validity of landscape visualisations: the effect of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Landsc. Urban Plann. 21 (2001) 61-72
11. Ford R.M., Williams K.J.H., Bishop I.D., and Webb T. Social acceptability of Forest Management Systems: Project Overview (2005), University of Melbourne, Parkville
12. Forestry Tasmania, 1999. Monitoring and protecting eucalypt regeneration. Native Forest Silviculture Technical Bulletin No. 12. Forestry Tasmania, Hobart.
13. Hetherington J. Representing the environment. In: Urbana-Soria J., Ortega-Andeane P., and Bechtel R. (Eds). Visual Surrogates in Environmental Assessment (1991), Healthy Environments 246-252 (EDRA 22)
14. Hetherington J., Daniel T., and Brown T.C. Is motion more important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environment perception research. J. Environ. Psychol. 13 (1993) 283-291
15. Hickey, J.E., 1993. A comparison of oldgrowth mixed forest with regeneration resulting from logging or wildfire. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Tasmania, Hobart.
16. Hickey J., Neyland M.G., and Bassett O.D. Rationale and design for the Warra Silvicultural Trial in wet Eucalyptus obliqua forests in Tasmania. TasForests 13 (2001) 155-182
17. Hickey J.E., and Wilkinson G.R. Long-term regeneration trends from a silvicultural systems trial in lowland cool temperate rainforest in Tasmania. Tasforests 11 (1999) 1-22
18. Lange E. The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54 (2001) 63-182
19. Leff H.L., Gordon L.R., and Ferguson J.G. Cognitive sets and environmental awareness. Environ. Behav. 6 4 (1974) 395-447
20. Lothian A. Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder?. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54 (1999) 163-182
21. Luymes D. The rhetoric of visual simulation in forest design: Some research directions. In: Sheppard S.R.J., and Harshaw H.W. (Eds). Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics (2001), CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon 191-204
22. McQuillan A.G. Honesty and foresight in computer visualisations. J. Forest. (1998) 15-16
23. Orland B., and Uusitalo J. Immersion in a virtual forest-some implications. In: Sheppard S.R.J., and Harshaw H.W. (Eds). Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics (2001), CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon 205-224
24. Palmer J.F., and Hoffman R.E. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54 (2001) 149-161
25. Ribe R.G. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions. Environ. Behav. 34 6 (2002) 757-780
26. Rohrmann B., and Bishop I. Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban environments. Landsc. Urban Plann. 22 (2002) 319-331
27. Schroeder H., and Orland B. Viewer preference for spatial arrangement of park trees: an application of video-imaging technology. Environ. Manage. 18 (1994) 119-128
28. Sheppard S.R.J. Guidance for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics for landscape visualisation. Landsc. Urban Plann. 54 (2001) 183-199
29. Shuttleworth S. The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in landscape studies. J. Environ. Manage. 11 (1980) 61-76
30. Stamps A.E. Use of photographs to simulate environments: a meta-analysis. Percept. Mot. Skills 71 (1990) 907-913
31. Thorn A.J., Daniel T., Orland C., and Brabyn B.N. Managing forest aesthetics in production forests. N.Z. Forest. 42 (1997) 21-29
32. Vining J., and Orland B. The video advantage: a comparison of two environmental representation techniques. J. Environ. Manage. 29 (1989) 275-283
33. Ward L.M., and Russell J.A. Cognitive set and the perception of place. Environ. Behav. 13 (1988) 610-632
34. Wherret J.R. Predicting preferences for scenic landscapes using computer simulations. In: Sheppard S.R.J., and Harshaw H.W. (Eds). Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability and Aesthetics (2001), CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon 247-260