Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00244-4Get rights and content

Abstract

Knowledge on human reactions to visualizations and knowledge on the suitability of these visualizations to landscape preference studies is limited. This article aims at filling out some of this gap of information by presenting criteria for evaluating the suitability of visualization methods for forest landscape preference research purposes and by comparing the benefits and disadvantages of different means of visualization: on-site visits, original and manipulated photographs, and virtual landscape simulators. The focus of the article is on virtual landscape simulators that are totally or partly developed in Finland.

Today digital image editing and virtual landscape simulators offer the most sophisticated means of visualization for forest landscape preference research. With the aid of these methods it is possible to control the variables that are not in the focus of the study. Landscape simulators are less labor-intensive than image editing and offer flexible movement between different viewpoints. Simulators are not restricted to represent limited areas in the manner of photographs. They are also able to link images with forest inventory data and planning systems. However, for preference research purposes these illustrations may correspond inadequately to the real world whereas digital image editing produces images corresponding to the realistic qualities of the original photos.

In future, virtual landscape simulators will be the easiest and the most flexible means of visualization in forest landscape preference research given that the development of simulators will take into account the needs of preference research. Research purposes may require relatively high levels of realism in illustrations, which sets a need for large photographic databases, as well as integration with different sources of spatial data. In addition, the use of mixed techniques offers possibilities for efficient and accurate visualizations. More empirical research is needed in order to evaluate and compare the usability of visualization media in forest landscape preference research.

Introduction

Visualization of landscapes is nowadays a central part of forest landscape perception and preference research. This kind of research has many practical applications. Landscape designers and forest managers require knowledge about people’s perceptions and interpretations of different landscapes. They need to know both what kinds of landscapes generate pleasant feelings and enhance people’s well being and also what kinds of stimuli create displeasing emotions and negative feedback. Because landscapes are constantly modified, planning requires knowledge about people’s reactions to changes, such as modifications caused by forest management and land use changes.

Numerous approaches have been used to study people’s aesthetic reactions to landscapes. In all approaches the visualization of the landscape can be a good instrument; while people are usually good at understanding images, they tend to have difficulties in understanding information presented in other forms (Tahvanainen et al., 2001). While also other senses influence the perceiving and experiencing of landscape, the main part of landscape perception occurs through the sense of sight. Thus visualization is the primary method in the description of landscapes.

Zube et al. (1982) divide the large variety of landscape perception research into expert, psychophysical, cognitive, and experiential paradigms. Daniel and Vining (1983) use a similar classification. They have defined the methods of assessing landscape quality as ecological, formal aesthetic, psychophysical, psychological, and phenomenological models.

A modification of these groupings is presented in Table 1. The quality of the landscape is always determined by human appraisal. Either experts or the public can evaluate the landscape. The difference of the approaches lies in their conception of the human being. The way in which the human being is comprehended affects the choice of the visualization medium too.

In the expert model skilled and trained experts evaluate the landscape according to the principles of art, design, ecology, or management. The experts evaluate either the ecological or formal aesthetic landscape variables. Visualization is a common tool for experts and they are usually capable of understanding different kind of images. This article concentrates on public’s reactions to landscapes and therefore expert approach is excluded from further review.

In the psychophysical model the human being functions as a recipient and passive observer of the environment. The visual elements of the landscape are measured, e.g. the amount of logging residue, the diameter of the stems, and the basal area of the forest stand. The respondents are asked to evaluate the quality of the landscape, usually with a single psychological response such as landscape preference, scenic beauty, or scenic quality. The connections between the features measured and the preferences observed are searched by the means of statistical analyses. Many studies do not specify any psychophysical functions, but describe the characteristics of preferred and less-preferred landscapes in general terms (Daniel and Vining, 1983).

The cognitive (or psychological) approach involves a search for human meaning and information associated with landscapes. Cognitive theories emphasize how the informational content of the environment is organized, processed, and interpreted by the viewers (Ruddel et al., 1989). The aesthetic quality is only one of the several dimensions of human response (Daniel and Vining, 1983). Cognitive research is also often based on the presentation of the object. The respondent may be asked to evaluate the object through such perceptual, cognitive, and affective concepts as mystery, unity, coherence, and complexity. These variables are not separate features in the landscape but they describe the landscape as a whole. The relationship between variables and preferences is examined in order to find out the psychological basis of landscape preferences.

Phenomenological (or experiential) research considers human beings as active participants. It focuses more on the relationship between landscape and a person than on the comparative assessment of different landscapes. The phenomenological approach seeks to understand the total experience of the individual when she/he interacts with the landscape (Herzog, 1985). While visualization can be used in phenomenological inquiries, it has a different purpose here as it does in the other approaches mentioned above. It functions more as a stimulus for the respondent who can then produce his/her own representations, interpretations, and experiences of nature. Phenomenological approach is excluded from the further review, because its criteria for visualization are different from cognitive and psychophysical research. Instead, this article concentrates on psychophysical and cognitive approaches on landscape perception research; they can be labeled as landscape preference research.

The efficiency, usefulness, and validity of various visualization systems in landscape preference research are inadequately known. Empirical research on human reactions to different kinds of illustrations and on the suitability of these illustrations to preference studies is limited. This article aims at evaluating the applicability of visualization methods for forest landscape preference research. At first, the article analyzes the requirements and demands that cognitive and psychophysical landscape preference research set for visualization. Based on these criteria, the article presents comparison of the suitability of visualization systems for forest landscape preference research. It evaluates on-site visits, photographs, digital image editing, and virtual landscape simulators that are partly or totally developed in Finland.

Section snippets

Criteria for appropriate visualization methods in forest landscape preference research

Several criteria can be used in the evaluation of the applicability of visualization systems for forest landscape preference research, but human perception of the environment should always be the central basis for developing criteria. An essential way of experiencing landscape is moving through the landscape and perceiving it from different angles. People usually pay attention to unique features of landscape and are capable of remembering details of actual landscapes. People also are sensitive

Evaluation of visualization methods for forest landscape preference research

This section presents a review and a comparison of some visualization methods that can be used in forest landscape preference research; on-site visits, photographs, digital photo editing, and forest landscape simulators that are totally or partly developed in Finland. Evaluation of visualization methods is based on the requirements that landscape preference research sets as described in previous section. Assessment is partly grounded on authors’ judgments and experience in using the methods

Discussion and conclusions

Today digital image editing and virtual landscape simulators seem to offer the most advanced visualization methods for the needs of most forest landscape preference studies. Ultimately, the purpose of each particular study and which of the presented criteria are the most important in that study determine the choice of a particular visualization method.

Compared to digital image editing landscape simulators have many advantages. Landscape simulators have automated visualization, and pictures can

Acknowledgements

The Finnish Forest Research Institute and the Academy of Finland (SA 39715, SA 62567) have supported this work. We would like, in particular, to thank Professor Timo Pukkala from the University of Joensuu for the valuable comments of this article as well as for illustrations of MONSU program. Furthermore, we would like to thank researchers Veli-Matti Kivinen and Jori Uusitalo from the University of Helsinki for the updated information on as well as illustrations of Smart Forest. Mr. Antti

References (41)

  • L Tahvanainen et al.

    Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information

    Landscape Urban Plann.

    (2001)
  • J Wann et al.

    What does virtual reality need? Human factors issues in the design of three-dimensional computer environments

    Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud.

    (1996)
  • E.H Zube et al.

    Landscape perception: research, application and theory

    Landscape Urban Plann.

    (1982)
  • R.P Abello et al.

    Consensus and contrast components in landscape preference

    Environ. Behav.

    (1986)
  • Brush, R., 1976. Perceived quality of scenic and recreational environments. Some methodological issues. In: Craik,...
  • R Brush

    The attractiveness of woodlands: perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts

    For. Sci.

    (1979)
  • Bryson, S., 1995. Approaches to the successful design and implementation of VR applications. In: Earnshaw, R.A., Vince,...
  • Daniel, T.C., Vining, J., 1983. Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman, I., Wohlwill,...
  • R.B Hull et al.

    Issues in sampling landscapes for visual quality assessments

    Landscape Urban Plann.

    (1989)
  • R.L Levine et al.

    Attitudes towards clearcutting and their relationships to the patterning and diversity of forest recreation activities

    For. Sci.

    (1979)
  • Cited by (83)

    • Valuation of aesthetic ecosystem services of protected coastal dunes and forests

      2019, Ocean and Coastal Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      The development of digital modelling and GIS has further facilitated the psychophysical approach based upon measuring responses to landscapes and deriving critical parameters, which can now be spatially and visually modelled in an integrated way (Ghadirian and Bishop, 2008; Swaffield and McWilliam, 2013). Yet, in spite of the emergence of new, more advanced, visual techniques in the last few decades, many scenic quality studies still use photographs as visual stimuli in landscape perception and preference research (de la Fuente de Val and Mühlhauser, 2014; de la Fuente de Val et al., 2006; Huang, 2013; Jacobsen, 2007; Karjalainen and Tyrväinen, 2002). A series of comparative evaluations have confirmed the general viability of photographs as surrogates for landscape experience (Fairweather and Swaffield, 2001).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Tel.: +358-9-19158104; fax: +358-9-19158100.

    View full text