Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a Finnish perspective
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)
- et al.
The validity of computer generated graphic images of forest landscapes
J. Environ. Psychol.
(1995) Data visualization for decision support in environmental management
Landscape Urban Plann.
(1992)A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes
J. Environ. Psychol.
(1985)- et al.
Is motion more important than it sounds? The medium of presentation in environment perception research
J. Environ. Psychol.
(1993) - et al.
Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments
J. Environ. Psychol.
(1992) The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands: perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists
Landscape Urban Plann.
(1995)- et al.
Using image-capture technology to assess scenic value at the urban/forest interface: a case study
J. Environ. Manage.
(1994) - et al.
The visual effect of felling on small and medium scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland
J. Environ. Manage.
(1999) A perceptual evaluation of computer-based landscape simulations
Landscape Urban Plann.
(1994)- et al.
Judgments of photographs vs. field observations in studies of perception and judgement of the visual environment
J. Environ. Psychol.
(1984)
Forest management and public perceptions—visual versus verbal information
Landscape Urban Plann.
What does virtual reality need? Human factors issues in the design of three-dimensional computer environments
Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud.
Landscape perception: research, application and theory
Landscape Urban Plann.
Consensus and contrast components in landscape preference
Environ. Behav.
The attractiveness of woodlands: perceptions of forest landowners in Massachusetts
For. Sci.
Issues in sampling landscapes for visual quality assessments
Landscape Urban Plann.
Attitudes towards clearcutting and their relationships to the patterning and diversity of forest recreation activities
For. Sci.
Cited by (83)
Forest digital twin: A new tool for forest management practices based on Spatio-Temporal Data, 3D simulation Engine, and intelligent interactive environment
2023, Computers and Electronics in AgricultureA crowdsource approach to documenting users' preferences for landscape attributes in the proposed Appalachian Geopark Project in West Virginia, United States
2023, International Journal of Geoheritage and ParksImpacts of woodland planting on nature-based recreational tourism in upland England – A case study
2023, Landscape and Urban PlanningShort virtual nature breaks in the office environment can restore stress: An experimental study
2022, Journal of Environmental PsychologyInvestigating sense of place of the Las Vegas Strip using online reviews and machine learning approaches
2021, Landscape and Urban PlanningValuation of aesthetic ecosystem services of protected coastal dunes and forests
2019, Ocean and Coastal ManagementCitation 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).
- 1
Tel.: +358-9-19158104; fax: +358-9-19158100.