The resulting contrast ratings were used to determine the project’s compliance to visual management class objectives, assigned in the baseline inventory. By roughly correlating contrast rating (none, weak, moderate and strong) to the four visual management classes (I, II, III, IV, respectively), compliance was determined. Project sites that did not meet the area’s visual management class objectives were identified, and additional mitigation measures were proposed. In some cases, mitigation was suggested for projects that did meet an area’s management objectives, in order to further improve the project’s visual appearance.
Simulation issues and process
Legal and procedural issues
The evaluation and assessment of impacts to visual resources in the western USA, especially those on federal government agencies’ lands, often require an Environmental Analysis (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). These are detailed environmental analyses, with the EIS being the most extensive. Most US federal land management agencies have specific and detailed visual analysis systems for inventory, assessment and management of impacts to visual resources, including visualization as an analysis tool.
Two components of these visual analysis systems are very important to surface mining in particular. First, in order to determine visual impacts, or contrasts, of proposed surface mining activities the existing landscape’s visual character, often referred to as the
‘characteristic landscape’, must be inventoried and described. With surface mining, the existing landscape sometimes includes previous mining activity which may, by virtue of historical precedent, actually be considered part and parcel of the existing ‘characteristic landscape’. This determination becomes critical to assessing the contrast of proposed surface mining activities. Related to this is the second component, the cumulative visual impacts of surface mining activities in an area or region. Large surface mines, such as gold, coal and hard rock minerals are long-term opera-tions, subject to incremental expansion as well as new operations adjacent to, or disconnected from, existing mining operations. In terms of visual impacts, and the need for visualization of those impacts, careful attention must be paid to these cumulative visual effects.
Data reliability, accuracy and currency issues
Surface mining results in the exposure (visual) of sub-surface conditions. This is expressed in rock layers, highwalls, talus slopes, and extreme visual changes in form, line, colour and texture. Although mining engineers use sophisticated technologies to map sub-surface geological strata, this data is rarely detailed enough to accurately predict the visual appearance of these conditions when exposed on the surface during and after mining. As a result, visualization of these conditions, which may not be revealed for weeks, months or years, is difficult and subject to some degree of conjecture. In contrast to the landfill situation, in mining engineering CAD or GIS digital data is sometimes incomplete, or of a degree of detail and resolution sufficient for general mine planning but not for developing highly accurate visualizations of concurrent and post-mining visual conditions. In the case of surface mining, operations and plans are constantly changing. Therefore, CAD and related data are likewise changing; data which is accurate this month may be outdated the next. Short-term changes in mine operations and plans have long-term visual effects which are generally hard to predict.
Political/social factors issues
There are two major factors in this category. First, various political jurisdictions may be involved in the regulation of surface mining activities on any one site. Federal, state and county jurisdictions are usually involved, with conflicting guidelines and regulations which the surface mining operators must try to appease. Second, in most cases the public will express some level of concern or sensitivity about the visual effects of proposed surface mining. Responding to this concern is one of the strongest aspects of visualization. ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’ has never been more true. Many of the environmental consequences of surface mining can be more clearly understood by the public (and the professionals) when seen in a properly developed visualization image.
Visual simulations can be used as social survey instruments, identifying the visual resource issues of public concern and gauging public reaction and preferences for alternative mining plans. The public’s ‘sensitivity level’ towards proposed visual changes is one of the major components of many visual resource analysis and management systems. Related to the operational issues described above, the future time periods illustrated must be carefully chosen, and must reflect changes in the landscape other than surface mining (for exam-ple, new roads, more people therefore more housing and commercial activity, growth and change in vegetation, etc.). Many of these changes are very difficult to predict and to visualize.
Visualization process issues
It is commonly assumed that a visual simulation must represent a high level of geometric accuracy in order to be useful and credible. In fact, research has shown this is often not the case (Watzek and Ellsworth 1994). This research determined that the scale of a proposed landscape change, such as a road or a pipeline, in some cases may vary as much as plus or minus 15 per cent before the scale inaccuracy is noticed by observers. As mentioned above, in surface mining, the design and planning process most often precludes highly accurate and reliable data for visualization. In many, if not most,
Applications in energy, industry and infrastructure 171
planning studies at the EA or EIS level the project alternatives have not yet been designed in sufficient detail to support highly accurate visualizations. Humans are amazingly adept at ‘filling in the blanks’ in the visual display, which includes subtle or even gross inaccuracies in content, space, form, line, colour, texture and scale. This facility to understand the environment with minimal information means that landscape visualization can be successfully achieved with reasonable and defensible results without expending exorbitant amounts of time, energy, resources, and money in trying to achieve exact accuracy.
In the visual simulations of surface mining described above, design plans provided by the mining engineers were carefully studied and discussed, with multiple client and in-house reviews conducted with EALA staff. The proposed landscape changes were in the EIS design stage, therefore high levels of accuracy were not attainable or necessary. The purpose of these visual simulations was to communicate the intent of the mining plans to the government regulatory agencies, the mining company and interested citizens while recognizing that the plans were flexible and subject to discussion, review and change as necessary.
For visualizations that do not require three-dimensional or animated displays, sophisticated and affordable image-editing software and hardware is readily available for the development of highly realistic and credible visualizations (such as the surface mine visualizations seen above). This family of software works very well in those situations where highly accurate and reliable data is unavailable (as discussed above). Such software provides a very powerful array of image manipulation and enhancement features.
The starting point for effective and reliable image manipulation is appropriate base images. Cameras, either film or digital, are the basic tool in the field photographer’s box.
Either media works well, with film having the advantage of extremely high resolution but is relatively expensive per frame compared to digital which is also more flexible. The
‘normal perspective’ lens (e.g. 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera body) is usually preferable over telephoto or wide angle to maintain proper perspective. Panoramic images can be achieved by digitally ‘stitching’ two or more normal perspective images together or with the use of a special panorama camera and lens.
Other useful equipment includes tripods (for stability but also for maintaining observation position), measuring tapes for determining camera-to-object distances and dimensions of elements in the landscape, GPS units for recording accurate locations of observation position, and helium balloons for determining accurate heights as well as extents of proposed landscape changes.
Careful and detailed records of images’ location, weather and clouds, direction of view, aperture and shutter speeds, date and time of day, and other pertinent data are essential. All photo images should be captured at approximately the same time of day, preferably in the middle third of daylight hours. This will minimize the effects of long shadows which can be hard to match in a visual simulation. Plenty of photos should be taken from a variety of angles and observer positions (inferior, normal, superior) relative to the landscape undergoing change. Angles and positions should be systematically changed slightly with each successive shot to improve the chances of having just the right image when the computer work begins. All photos should be taken within a few days of one another, to minimize the effects of seasonal change in light and the associated effect
on colour and texture in vegetation and other landscape features. Include people, cars, power lines, fence lines, and other known figures and features for scale (cows and other livestock work well in rural scenes as most people are familiar with their size). Use measuring tapes to confirm the dimensions of these elements as much as possible and keep meticulous notes.
The selection of important viewpoints, often called ‘Key Observation Points’ (KOPs) is crucial and includes careful attention to the angle of observation, number of viewers, length of time the project is in view, relative project size, season of use and light conditions. The most important viewpoints are often:
• from communities, road crossings, gathering places (e.g. shopping centres, churches, parks);
• typical views encountered in representative landscapes, such as the daily commute driving route of many people;
• points from which any special project or landscape features such as skylines, bridges, utility lines, etc. can be seen.
Conclusion
Photo-realistic computer visual simulations are a very valuable tool in the design and planning of surface mining or landfill operations. When used ethically and with care, they can result in representative, realistic, bias-free and credible representations of future conditions. They can be effective communication tools for explaining the operator’s intentions, and indispensable analysis tools for assessing the visual impacts of operations on public and private lands.
This work is copyright © 2004 John C.Ellsworth (surface mining portions) and Abraham N.Medina (landfill portions), all rights reserved; printed here with permission.
THE PROVISION OF VISUALIZATION TOOLS FOR ENGAGING PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONAL AUDIENCES
David R.Miller, Jane G.Morrice and Alastor Coleby
Introduction
As the outcomes and consequences of landscape planning decisions are generally poorly shared amongst different stakeholders, there is a demand for tools that increase the understanding of landscape changes and provide techniques for supporting the planning, and negotiation, of changes in land use policy that will affect regional and local environments (Krause 2001; Appleton et al. 2001).
Such tools should enable public engagement in planning, which is a core element of the Aarhus Declaration on access to information, and public participation in decision making (European Union, 1998). In the UK it is recognized by public authorities and agencies, with Scottish Natural Heritage identifying a ‘supporting programme of public engagement and awareness’ (SNH 2003). Similarly, guidelines to the planning system in
Applications in energy, industry and infrastructure 173
Scotland seek ‘community involvement, dialogue and negotiation’ as part of a process
‘that respects the rights of the individual while acting in the interest of the wider community’ (Scottish Executive 2003).
One definition of ‘engagement’ is provided in a report published by the UK Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM 2003). It states that ‘engagement means entering into a deliberative process of dialogue with others, actively seeking and listening to their views and exchanging ideas, information and opinions, while being inclusive and sensitive to power imbalances’. The ODPM (2003) also notes that engagement should be undertaken not only when there is a dispute to be resolved, and that raising awareness and discussing topics with a wide audience can be undertaken over a period of time to develop a relationship between stakeholders in a geographic area, or associated with a particular theme. However, it should be recognized that the dialogue must be understood and must inform discussion among public and professionals alike.
Visualization tools can address some deficits in information provision (Bulkeley and Mol 2003), increase the effectiveness of decision making and potentially avoid the costly process of public enquiries. This chapter describes initiatives taken to support public engagement, and the communication of changes in the landscape to both professional and public audiences.
Landscape change
The consequences of change in the landscape vary in magnitude and time-scale. The high public profile of some prospective changes, such as those driven by targets to increase the amount of energy produced from renewable sources, is an example of how rapid change, perhaps for a limited duration (25 years), can arouse considerable interest. The importance of wind turbines in the landscape cannot only be attributed to their potential visual impacts, although this is one of the issues most often raised and argued over (http://www.communitypeople.net/interactive/distopics.asp).
Other landscape-related issues may have a lower public profile, but be of greater direct significance over the longer term. For example, the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (European Union 2003) provides support for rural development activities, and promotes production practices that are ‘compatible with the maintenance and enhancement of the landscape’. There would appear to be the potential for large sums of money to be directed towards rural landscapes across the European Union, with a key requirement being consideration of environmental quality. Thus, over a long term, perhaps a period greater than 20 years, there is the opportunity of significant investment in the rural landscape.
Changes to the landscape are likely outcomes of the policies identified above (indeed there is an overlap, with CAP reform enabling investment in biomass under the rural development agenda). However, the time-scales over which discernible change may occur will be different, as will the nature of the changes. Wind turbines will introduce man-made structures taller than any current equivalents into a predominantly rural landscape, located on relatively few sites (but visible from considerable distances). In contrast, CAP reform may lead to an increase in apparently semi-natural features (e.g.
woodlands) and maintenance of farm infra-structure (e.g. field boundaries using traditional materials) in very many locations across an area but, taken individually,
features at any one location are unlikely to be highly visible. The potential changes in each example merit engagement with professional and public stakeholders, but some form of consultation is only likely with regard to wind turbines. In each case there could be a similar approach to the provision of materials to be used in the engagement with a public audience, including the use of computer-based landscape modelling to show and explain the extent of prospective changes.
Communications with members of the public
A recent example of engagement placed an emphasis on the two-way interactions between stakeholders in two woodlands purchased by a