ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Landscape
and
Urban
Planning
jou rn al h om ep a ge :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / l a n d u r b p l a n
Research
Paper
What
you
see
is
not
always
what
you
get:
A
qualitative,
comparative
analysis
of
ex
ante
visualizations
with
ex
post
photography
of
landscape
and
architectural
projects
Melanie
Downes
∗,
Eckart
Lange
∗∗TheUniversityofSheffield,UnitedKingdom
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Articlehistory:
Received5August2013
Receivedinrevisedform21May2014 Accepted3June2014
Availableonline16July2014
Keywords:
Visualization Landscape
Architecturalphotography Communication
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Thisstudypresentsaqualitative,comparativeanalysisofexantevisualizations,createdduringplanning anddesignphases,withexpostphotographyoflandscapeandarchitecturalprojects.Visualizationsplay anincreasinglyimportantroleasdecision-makingtoolsintheplanningprocessandareexpectedto successfullycommunicateproposalstobothexpertsandlaypersons.Outsideofthewindfarmindustry thereisalackofdetailedguidanceforthosecreatinglandscapevisualizationsandcurrentlynomethod ofanalyzingtheaccuracyofvisualizationsexists.Inaworldwhereweincreasinglyrelyoninformation communicatedinavisualmanneritisimperativethatpotentialviewersareprovidedwithcluestoenable themtodistinguishbetweenwhatisrealandwhatisnot.Thisstudyanalysesaselectionofvisualizations fromacrosssectionoflandscapeandarchitecturalprojectsandrevealsreoccurringpatternsof incon-sistenciesinthedepictionofcontentelements.Thecontrolofproductionthroughagreedguidelines proposedbypreviouslypublishedresearchcouldhavebothpositiveandnegativeeffectsforthefuture ofvisualizationproduction.Thisresearchproposesthatthestartingpointforhonestcommunicationlies intransparency,inbothproductiontechniquesandpresentationtoclients,stakeholdersandthepublic. Thereisscopeformoreindepthimageanalysisofalargerbodyofprojectsthatmayrevealmoredetailed findingsthatcouldcontributetofutureguidelinediscussions.
©2015TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1. Introduction
Theuseofdiverseformsofvisualizationasacommunication toolintheplanningprocessoflandscapeandarchitectureprojects isgrowinginpopularity(e.g.Gill,Lange,Morgan,&Romano,2013). In recent years, this is driven by theneed to findmore effec-tivemeansofpublicparticipation(e.g.Lange&Hehl-Lange,2005). Developmentsintheuseofvisualizationsareaidedby continu-ingadvancesincomputerprocessingpowerandreadilyavailable software.
Theeffectivenessofvisualizationsasacommunicationtooland issues which arise withtheir usehasbeen subjectof previous
∗Correspondingauthor.
∗∗Correspondingauthorat:DepartmentofLandscape,UniversityofSheffield,Floor
13,TheArtsTower,WesternBank,SheffieldS102TN,UnitedKingdom. Tel.:+4401142220600.
E-mailaddresses:melanie.downes@gmail.com(M.Downes),
e.lange@sheffield.ac.uk(E.Lange).
researchwhichhasfocusedonresponseequivalenceandaudience (Sheppard,2001;Wergles&Muhar,2009),realismandviewer per-ception(Lange,2001)aswellasonalackofstandardproduction methodologyandassessmentcriteria(MacFarlane,Stagg,Turner, &Lievesley,2005;Sheppard,2001).
Generally,methodsfortheassessmentofexistinglandscapes and proposed futures using landscape visualizations (see e.g.
Daniel,2001;Lange&Legwaila,2012;Ribe,Armstrong,&Gobster, 2002;Zube,Sell,&Taylor,1982)canbegroupedintoquantitative perceptual(askingpeopleabout‘judgments’),qualitative percep-tual(askingpeopletodescribedifferencesbetweenthepresented stimuli),quantitativeanalytical (developingmetrics toestimate thedegreeofdifferencese.g.inbefore/afterimages)and qualita-tiveanalytical(describingobjectivedifferencesbetweenimages) approaches.
Littleconclusiveresearchhasbeencarriedouttocompareex antevisualizationsintroducedduringtheplanningphaseof land-scapeandarchitecturalprojectswithexpostphotographyofthe finishedsite.Thispaperoutlinesapurposivecritiqueof visualiza-tionsproduced forspecificlandscapeandarchitecturalprojects.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.002
Thiswasachievedthroughqualitativeanalysisoftheexante visual-izations(Before)comparedtoexpostphotographsofthecompleted sites(After).
1.1. Theuseofimagestocommunicateproposedlandscape changes
Visualizationswhichaimtoshowproposeddesignsastheywill appearinrealitywerepioneeredinthelandscapeprofessionby EnglishmanHumphryRepton(1752–1818).Heisthefirst practi-tionerwhosystematicallycreatedimageswhichdepicted‘before andafter’scenariosinhisfamous‘RedBooks’.
Repton(1840)postulatedthatthehumaneyefindsitdifficult tojudgedistanceandscaleunlessthereissomeknownstandard bywhichitcanbemeasured.Hewasconcernedthat“treesareof suchvarioussizesthatitisimpossibletousethemasameasureof distance;butthesizeofahorse,asheeporacowvariessolittle thatweimmediatelyjudgeoftheirdistancefromtheirapparent diminution,accordingtothedistanceatwhichtheyareplaced” (pp.348–349).
Thisroleofcommunicatingproposalstoclientsandsiteusers remainsoneofvitalimportanceinthefieldoflandscape architec-turetoday.Presentingavisualrepresentationofideasanddesigns forthefuturemakesitpossibletoconveycomplexinformationtoa widevarietyofviewers.Thisisparticularlyimportantforprojects thatrequirepublicconsultation.Often,insuchcasesvisualizations arepreparedtofacilitatediscussionbetweenexpertsfromplanning anddesigndisciplinesandnon-experts,orstakeholdersingeneral.
2. Areasofresearch:standards,perception,accuracy, realismandbias
Landscape visualizationsprovide a way of translating ideas behinddesignandplanningconceptsanddatadepictedinplaninto amoreaccessiblevisualformforthepurposeofcommunication. Visualizationisamethodofcomputingwiththeabilitytotransform thesymbolicintothegeometricforthepurposesofobservation andevaluation.Thus,“visualizationoffersamethodforseeingthe unseen”(McCormick,DeFanti,&Brown,1987,p.3).
Thepotentialoflandscapevisualizationsandtheirroleof con-veyinginformationforplanningdecisionsisconciselydescribed bySheppard(2001,p.194)as“specificallytoprovidethemeansfor bothanemotional(affective)responsetoproposedfuture environ-mentsandananalyticalassessmentofexpectedaestheticchanges”.
2.1. Productionstandards
Current production standards of visualizations vary greatly acrossthelandscapeplanninganddesigndisciplines,totheextent that the lack of a framework or guidelines for their creation leaveslandscapeprofessionalsopentocriticism.Consistency in productionstandardsis ofincreasingimportanceinthelightof EUregulationrequirementsforpublicconsultationand participa-tionin theplanningprocess(e.g.EuropeanCommission,2003).
Sheppard(2001,p.192)believestheuseofvisualizations becom-ingmorecommonplaceinpublicdecision-makingwillleadto“an increasinglikelihoodofdebateovertheirveracity,andoflitigation resultingfromdifferencesbetweenthevisualizationsandthebuilt designs”.
Detailed landscape visualization guidelines for projects that requireanEnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA,seeEuropean Commission,1985),andprojectswhichdonot,arelimitedinthe UK.ThecurrentEIAandVisual ImpactAssessment(VIA) guide-lines compiled bythe LandscapeInstitutewiththe Instituteof EnvironmentalManagementandAssessment(2013)donotinclude specificproductionguidelinesforvisualizations.Theydohowever
reinforcetheimportance of transparencyand ease ofaccess to informationagreeingwiththeaimsoftheEnvironmentalimpact assessment:guidetoprocedures(DepartmentforCommunitiesand Local Government,2006)toensurethat“theimportanceof the predictedeffects,andthescopeforreducing them,areproperly understoodbythepublicand therelevantcompetentauthority beforeitmakesitsdecision”(p.7).Ithasbeennotedthatcurrent practicerequiresthetextcontentandperformancestandardsof EnvironmentalImpactStatementstoberegulated,howeverthere aregenerallynosetstandardsforvisualsimulations(Sheppard, 2001,p.191).RareexceptionsincludeguidelinesbytheLandscape Institute(2011)andgoodpracticeguidanceonthevisual represen-tationofwindfarms(SNH,2006).
2.2. Perception,visionandourexperienceoftheenvironment
Our sensory perception of the environment varies greatly dependingonwhetherweareexperiencingitphysicallyorthrough photographyorvisualization.Thevisualaspectoflandscapeplays akeyroleinourperceptionoftheenvironment.Bruce,Green,& Georgeson(1996)estimatethat80%ofman’sperceptionisbased onsight,howeverothersensory,physiologicalandpsychological factorsalsoinfluenceourperceptionofplace.
There are key differences in visually experiencing an envi-ronment on site compared to viewing a visualization. When experiencinganenvironmentonsitethedynamicboundariesof thehumanvisualfieldarenotlimited.Acombinationofheadand saccadiceyemovementprovidevital cluestothebrain inform-ingimportantcalculationsaboutscale,distanceandspeed.Gibson (1950)pointsoutthattheeyesfunctionasbothaverywide pho-tographiclensandatelephotolens.Incontrast,whenviewingan environmentbylookingatavisualizationorphotographweare limitedbythefixedphysicalboundariesoftheprintedorprojected format.
Partialviewsofobjectsorlackofcontrastcanleadpeopleto “see” an object and still fail to perceive theobject (University of Newcastle,2002).On theotherhand,characteristics suchas scale,brightnessandcontrastcandrawattentiontoanobject.The linkbetweentheseelementsleavespotentialforperceptionbeing enhancedorsuppressed.
2.3. Accuracyandrealism
Theeffectofaccuracyontheviewerhasbeeninvestigatedby
Watzek&Ellsworth(1994).Ithasbeenarguedthatitisnotclear whatlevelofaccuracyisnecessaryforpeopletoacceptvisual sim-ulationsandthatformanysituationsexactaccuracymaynotbe required(Watzek&Ellsworth,1994).Sheppard(2001)arguesthat althoughaccuracyinitselfmaynotbeenoughtoensurevalidity, thepracticeofpermittinginaccuraciesinlandscapevisualizations posesadanger.Thedangerismadeapparentforexampleby alle-gationsregardingthemisrepresentationofturbinesinanumberof Scottishwindfarms(Macaskill,2010).Researchhasindicatedthat turbinesdepictedinvisualizationsthatusepanoramic,wideangle viewsofthelandscapecanhavetheeffectofmakingtheturbines appearsmallerthantheyactuallyare(Macdonald,2007).
(2005)raisesconcernsthatcurrenthard-andsoftwarefor visual-izationprovidetheopportunitytoproducevisualizationsthatcan lookhighlyrealistic–evenwithinaccuratedata(p.6).Daniel& Meitner(2001)maintainthatdespiteanaccurateprojectionand portrayalofbiophysical conditions,it ispossiblethat visualiza-tionsmayproduceperceptionsthat arenotconsistentwithlive experiencesof theenvironmentsrepresented.As Gibson(1974, citedinSanoff,1991)remindsus“picturesrecorddatanotsensory information”.
Solutionstotheseproblemsareparticularlyrelevantto com-mercialpracticesproducinglandscapevisualizationsthatseekto balancehighqualityproductionvalueswithfiniteresourcesand tighttimedeadlines.Clearly,there isstillimportantworktobe donetoidentifythresholdsofacceptabilityforadequatelevelsof realismandaccuracy(seeSheppard,2001).
2.4. Bias
Biasintheselectionofcontentforlandscapevisualizationsis apotentiallycontentiousissueandremainsaninherentdangerin theirproduction(cf.Watzek&Ellsworth,1994).Appleyard(1977, p.48)statesthatthereisgrowingpressureinthevariousphases ofcommunicatingadesignproject“topersuadethepublicofits value”.Thiscouldpotentiallyleadtobiasedintentionsofthe sim-ulator.MacFarlaneetal.(2005)alsoalludetotheproblemofbias incaseswherethedeveloperiscommissioningclientforlandscape visualizationsproducedaspartofanEIA,e.g.inthecaseofalleged misrepresentationofwindturbinesinScottishwindfarm develop-mentswheredeveloperswerethecommissionersofvisualizations oftheproposals(Macaskill,2010).Furthermore,theselectionof viewpoints,eitherdeliberatelyoraccidentally,couldleadtobiasif theviewpointsdonotshowaprojectfromatypicalviewpointorin typicalconditions(seee.g.Lange,1994;Sheppard,1989).Daniel& Meitner(2001,p.64)mentionthepotentialpowerofspecific fea-turesinvisualizations“toaffectattention,toalterinterpretations ofcomplexconceptsanddifferentiallytoarousepositiveand/or negativeemotions”.
3. Methods
Themethodforcomparativeanalysisofvisualizationswithpost constructionphotographyaimstohighlightreoccurringissuesthat ariseinrelationtoaccuracyandrealismandtoexaminehowthese issueshavethepotentialtoimpactonaviewer’sperceptionofthe proposeddesign.
3.1. Projectselectioncriteria
Twelvelandscapeandarchitecturalprojectsthathaveallbeen completed since 2005 and within a two-year timeframe were selectedforanalysis.Theprojectsdidnotundergoanymajordesign changesbetweenthe publiclyavailable visualizationsandtheir completionasbuiltprojects.Theyaremainlysituatedinthepublic realm and include a suburban park, urban play space, univer-sitybuildingswithrelatedopenspaceandawatersideplaza.The projectsweredesignedandfundedbybothlocalauthoritiesand/or privatepracticeandusedbothpublicandprivatefundingintheir construction.Forreasonsofproximity,timeandfundingallsites analyzedwerelocatedwithinthecitiesofSheffield,UK,andDublin, Ireland.
Thevisualizationsselectedforanalysiswerereadilyavailable andtheywereallusedfor communicatingtheprojectwiththe public.
3.2. Datacollection
Initialsearches werecarried out for Before and After visual-izationsandphotographspublishedinthepublicdomainonthe Internet.Thesearchencompassedwebsitesoflandscape architec-turepractices,architecturalandurbandesignpractices,planning practices,citycouncilsandprojectdevelopers.Duringtheinitial stagesoftheresearchitbecameapparentthatthephotographsof thefinishedsitesthatwereavailabledidnotmatchthesame view-pointsasthevisualizationsproducedduringplanninganddesign phasesoftheprojects.
In order to carry out as accurate a comparison as possible between Before visualizations and After photographs, the After on-sitephotographsweretakenspecificallyforthisstudy.These photographsweretakenfromviewpointscorrespondingasclosely aspossibletothoseusedforthevisualizations.Insomecasesthis washamperedbyrestrictionstopublicaccessorbythepositions ofsubsequentdevelopments.
3.2.1. Visualizationcollection
Beforeimagesacquiredfromonlinesourcesvariedinfilesize andwerepredominantlyavailableinJPEGformat.Incaseswhere theresolutionofavisualizationwassolowthatpictorialelements becamedifficulttodistinguishhigherresolutiondigitalfileswere requestedfromtheoriginalproducersorclients.
Arepresentativeselectionofvisualizationswaschosenforeach project. Birdseye views were not used. Although these visual-izations can provide a useful overview of the project site the viewpointstheyrepresentaregenerallynotpubliclyaccessibleand thereforemakepoorcandidatesascomparativesubjects.
3.2.2. Postconstructionphotographycollection
Thecollectionofsitephotographicdatawasundertakenina systematicmannerduringaseriesofsitevisits.Photoswereshot between6th and 12thAugust 2010.Technical information and shootingcriteriaareshowninTable1.
3.2.3. Limitationsrelatingtophotographicdatacollection
Theanalysisacknowledgesacertaindegreeofdistortionto ver-ticalperspectiveduetotheuseofawideanglefixedlensasopposed toaspecialisttiltandshiftlens,asusede.g.inprofessional archi-tecturalphotography.Itwasdeemedunnecessarytocarryoutany lensdistortioncorrectioninpost-productionasthiswasnotakey comparisonfactorintheanalysis.Imageprocessing(e.g.Mitchell, 1992)waskepttoaminimum,butinsomecasesitwasnecessary tocarryoutbasiclevelscorrectionusingAdobePhotoshop,which wasrecordedinthePhotoImageDatasectionofthetext analy-sis.Inrarecasestheviewpointwasinaccessibleduetobuildings constructedsincetheproductionofthevisualization.
3.3. Exantevisualizationsandexpostphotography–comparison methodology
Imagepairsconsistingofone‘Before’visualizationandone‘After’ sitephotographwereselectedforeachproject.Thenumberof visu-alizationsanalyzedwasdeterminedbytherangeofvisualizations available(variedbyprojectbetweenoneandsix).
3.3.1. Photoselection
Table1
Photographictechnicalinformationandshootingcriteria.
Photographyequipmentand shootingcriteria
Technicaldetail Additionalnotes
Camera EOS5DMarkII,21.1megapixelfull frame36×24mCMOSsensor.
Aspectratio 3:2
Lens CanonEF24–70mmf/2.8LUSM Thisfixed24–70mm2.8lenswasthemostsuitableavailablelenswhichenabledaselectionof focallengthstoberecorded.
Focallengths Arangeoffixedfocallengthswereusedforeachcomposition,70mm,50mm,35mmand 24mm.
70mm 70–80mmlensisthecurrentlensadvisedbyspecialistsinthefieldofvisualizationforthe windenergyindustry,consideredtogivetheclosestmatchtothehumaneye.
50mm ‘Standard’lenstraditionallyconsideredthemostappropriatelensforportraitphotographyas itproducesminimaldistortionanditsfieldofcoverageisconsideredroughlyequivalentto thatofthehumaneye.
35mm/24mm Wideangleoptions–24mmwidestavailable(andclosestmatchtothewideangleviewsin manyoftheselectedvisualizations).
Lensheight 1.6m(approximately–seenote) Thedecisionwasmadetohandholdthecamerawhichwasparticularlyimportantforeaseof accessincasesinvolvingviewpointslocatedonorcrossingstreets.
Imagequalitysettings Mediumqualityjpeg 4080×2720pixels
Thissetting,consideredinrelationtoavailableprocessingpower,wasdeemedtoprovide sufficientqualityforthepurposesofthisanalysis.
Depthoffield f22/20(daylightonly–seenote) TheFstopwassettothehighestsetting22/20inordertoreflectthepredominantlylarge depthoffieldportrayedinthevisualizations.Inordertomaintainaslargeadepthoffieldas possibleshutterspeedandISOsettingswerealteredaccordingly.Fornight-timephotography theF-stophadtobesetlowertoworkwithavailablelighttoenableshootingwithavailable light.
Viewpointmatching Theinitialstepwastoattempttomatchascloselyaspossiblephotographicframingtothe visualizationframingmakingallowancesfordifferencesinaspectratio[available
visualizationshadavarietyofaspectratios].Visuallydominantelementsandtheirpositioning inthevisualizationwereusedasmarkers/visualcues[e.g.Mainbuildingposition,road alignment,trafficlightorlightpostpositioning]inadditionperspectivecuessuchasfootpaths orrooflineofakeybuildingwereusedtoaidcameraalignment.
colouredlines–forexamplethelineofafootpathortheroofline ofakeybuilding.
3.3.2. Presentationofimageanalysis
A set of criteria was established for presentation. It was importanttoseethevisualizationand photoonthesamepage. Visualizationswouldalwaysbeshownattheiroriginalaspectratio. Wherethevisualizationwaslargerthanthephotographbothwere shownattheiroriginalaspectratios.Toaidviewingfor compara-tivepurposesadottedlineshowingtheframingofthephotograph issuperimposedontothevisualization(Fig.2).
3.4. Objectmapping
Thismethodwasdevelopedtoprovideavisualrepresentationof thecomparativeimageanalysis.Mappingofindividualkeycontent elementsisintendedtoprovidetheviewerwithaquickoverview.
Fig.1showsinitialworkinvolvedusingbasicsymbolsanda vari-etyoflinetypesinonecolourtomarkthelocationofkeybuiltand vegetativeelementsinboththeBeforeVisualizationandAfterSite Photograph.Subsequently,theobjectmappingconceptwasrefined tomaketheresultsmoreeasilyreadable.Forexample,eachcontent element’soutlineshapeshouldberepresentedbyasingleline. Dif-ferentcontentelementtypes(structuralelements,vegetation,etc.) wererepresentedbydifferentcolouredlines.Thismeansof repre-sentationgivesabetterindicationofscaleandmassinadditionto locationinformation.
3.5. Imageanalysis
Atotaloftwenty-eightvisualizationswereanalyzedtoextract thekeycontentelements:
•Key proposed structures: Visible areas of proposed build-ing/landscapeconstructedelements.
•Structuralelements:Keyexistingandproposedbuiltstructures whicharedominantinthesceneand/ordonotmatchinscaleor position.
•Streetfurniture:Seating, railings,rubbishbins,streetsignage, bikeracks.
•Lighting:Streetlightingstructuresandtrafficlights.
•Vegetation:Streettrees,herbaceousplantingandmowngrass.
TheresultswererecordedinvisualformatusingtheObject Map-pingmethod(seealsoFig.2).Additionaltextanalysisnoteswere recordedintableformat(Tables2and3)underthefollowing cate-gories:styleofproduction,viewpoint,perspective,vegetation,built structures,streetfurniture,materials,people,traffic,weather,time ofday/yearandphotoimagedata.
4. Results
A selection of visualizationsencompassing a range of land-scapetypesispresented.Thesevisualizationsillustrateanumberof importantpointshighlightingalackofconsistencyrelatingin par-ticulartotheinclusionandomissionofvariousdesigncomponents, choiceofcameraanglesandframing.
Fig.1. TudorSquare/OpenSpace,Sheffield,UK.Exampleofinitialobjectmappingexperimentationusingbasicsymbolstorepresentkeycontentelementsincludingtrees, keybuiltstructures,lightingandlitterbins.VisualizationproducedandprovidedbySheffieldCityCouncil,photographbyMelanieDownes.
4.1. Styleofproduction
Theproductionstyleofvisualizationsanalyzedcanbebroadly fittedtothefollowingcategories:
•Computergeneratedelementsonly.
•Predominantlycomputergeneratedelementswiththeaddition ofsomephotographicelementssuchasvegetationandtrees. •Computergeneratedmodelssuper-imposedontoaphotograph
oftheexistingsite.
•Handdrawnstyle,illustratedaslinedrawingwithbasiccolour fill.
Therewasnodirectrelationshipdrawnbetweenthestyleof productionandlevelsofaccuracyandrealisminthevisualizations analyzed.
4.2. Viewpoint
Elevated viewpoints as used in many visualizations were deemedtoproducethefollowingpositiveandnegativeeffects:
•Allowsfortheinclusionofmoredetailasitreducesthelikelihood ofbackgroundobjectsbecomingobscuredbyforegroundobjects. •Canleadtoadistortedsenseofscale.
•Reducesthevisualimpactofforegrounditems.
•Viewpoints are sometimeslocated in inaccessible places,e.g. inwater bodies, amidstvegetationorin placespeoplewould notnormallystoptoobservetheviewsuchasthemiddleofa busyroadoratramline.Theseareclearlynotasrepresentative (seeSheppard,1989)asthoselocatedalongwell-usedroutes. Projectsthatprovideatleastsomeeyelevel,orclosetoeyelevel, perspectivesprovidethemostrepresentativeorrealistic impres-sionsofthefinisheddesign.
Table2
Imageanalysis:textnotestablesample.
XPROJECTNUMBER Nameandpurpose.Designer.Client. Completeddate.Visualizationproductiondate. Time-scalevisualizedyear.
STYLEOFPRODUCTION Computergeneratedelements only/Predominantlycomputergenerated elementswiththeadditionofsome photographicelementssuchasvegetationand trees/Computergeneratedmodels
super-imposedontoaphotographofthe existingsite/Handdrawnstyleillustratedas linedrawingwithbasiccolourfill.
VIEWPOINT Direction–NorthSouthEastWest/Heightand Locationofviewpoint.
PERSPECTIVE CorrectandDistortedperspectivenoted. VEGETATION Trees,herbaceousvegetation,climbing
vegetation,reedsandmowngrass. BUILTSTRUCTURES Keyproposedbuiltstructuresanddominant
existingbuiltstructures.
STREETFURNITURE Seating,railings,streetlights,trafficlights, streetsignage,litterbins,bollards,cycleracks. MATERIALS Textureandcolour/levelofdetail.
PEOPLE Numbersandpositioningofpeople. TRAFFIC Vehiculartrafficinclusionandomission. WEATHERTIMEOFDAY/YEAR Skycondition,Shadows,Seasonalcuesin
vegetationorclothingworn. COMMENTS Commentsonkeyissuesnoted
PHOTOIMAGEDATA Imagenumber.Dateofphotograph.Timeof photograph.Lenstype.Shutterspeed.F-stop. ISOsetting.
4.3. Perspective
Visualizations using computer-generated elements that are super-imposed ontoa photographoftheexisting site indicated thebestrepresentationoftrueperspective.Theexistingbuildings providedananchorfortheimageelementsofthedesignproposals.
Perspectivedistortionwasevidentinthefollowingcases:
•Whenphotographicbackgroundelementshavebeeninsertedas separateimageelements;thiscanresultininconsistentviewing angles.
•Whenthevisualizationforegroundandbackgroundappearsto havebeencreatedfromtwodifferentviewpoints;thiscanhave theeffectofdrawingtheforegroundclosertotheviewpointand resultsinthemisrepresentationofscaleinbackgroundelements.
4.4. Vegetation
Aninconsistentapproachtothedepictionof vegetationwas noticeableevenwithinspecificprojects.Existingtreesand back-ground shrubs were often omitted. These omissions may be explainedasamethodtoimproveviews ofproposedbuildings. Moresubtleapproachesarealsoevident,forinstancetheseasonal depictionofvegetation,theuseofbarewintertreestoallowan unhinderedviewofproposedbuildingdevelopment,ortrees show-ingvibrantautumnalcoloursforaddedvisualeffect.
Proposedtreeswereusuallydepictedinfullfoliage,anditwas notedthatwherephotographicrepresentationsoftreeshavebeen usedthereisoftenlittleeffortmadetointroducenoticeable vari-ancesinthetreecolourorform.Copyandpastetechniques,i.e. multipleuseofa singlecut-out element,issometimesevident, whichunderminestheworkofachievingarealisticscene.
Theproposedtreespeciessometimesdiffer intype tothose plantedonsite. Insomecasesthis maybeexplained bydesign reviewsthatoccurredaftertheproductionofthevisualizations.
Thematurityofproposedplantingissometimesinconsistent even within the same visualization. In the Father Collins Park
Table3
FatherCollinsPark,Dublin:imageanalysistextnotes.
21PROJECT FatherCollinsPark,Donaghmede,Dublin13, Ireland.Designedby:Abelleyro+Romero ArchitectswithMCOArchitects. Commissionedby:DublinCityCouncil. Completed:2009.Visualizationproduced: 24.04.06.Time-scalevisualized:notavailable. STYLEOFPRODUCTION Computergeneratedmodellingcombinedwith
photographictextureelements.Useof saturatedcoloursinparticularintheskyarea. Thelightsourcetotheleftofframecouldbe considereddistracting.
VIEWPOINT Direction–North.Inaccessibletothepublic– situatedinthewater.
PERSPECTIVE Goodmatchtothephotographofsite. VEGETATION Reedplantinginalongthewalkwaywaters
edgeintheforegroundhasbeenomittedand onlybarelyrepresentedwiththindistribution inthebackground.Treesrepresentedatastage ofsemimaturity.
BUILTSTRUCTURES Windturbineillustrationnotrepresentativeof thescaleonsite,thereisalargediscrepancy betweenthesizes.
STREETFURNITURE Lighting,binsandelectricalserviceboxeshave beenomitted.Seatingformandpositioning differentfromwhatwasconstructedonsite. MATERIALS Groundsurfacematerialsillustratedastwo
differenttypeshoweveronsitethisdistinction isveryminimal.Darkgroundsurfacematerial illustratedasreflective–noreflective propertiesinthesurfacinginstalledonsite. PEOPLE Foregroundfigure’sactionandeyeline
distracting.
TRAFFIC Novehiculartrafficillustrated.Publicpark– vehiculartrafficotherthanserviceand emergencyvehiclesnotpermitted. WEATHERTIMEOFDAY/YEAR Unrealisticallycloudlessbluesky.Shadows
castbytheshelterwouldsuggestmidmorning. Foliageandclothingsuggestsummer. COMMENTS Thereedplantingonsitehastheeffectof
softeningthehardconcreteedgesofthe promenade,onlyminimalreedplanting limitedtosmallareasisillustratedinthe visualization.
PHOTOIMAGEDATA IMG0519 06.08.2010 11.44 70mm 1/320 f22 ISO1600
visualization(Fig.3)treesandclimbingplantshavebeenillustrated assemi-maturewhilethebackgroundreedplantingisonly indi-catedasaverysparselyplantedmass(theoppositetoitscurrent onsiteform).Thevariationandinconsistenciesinthedepictionof vegetationcanbeattributedtoanumberoffactors.Themost com-mondrivingfactorsbeingthatdetailedplantingdesignhappensat alaterstagethantheproductionofthevisualizationsand plant-ingisoftentheelementinschemeswhichisreducedorcutwhen budgetsareunderpressure.
4.5. Builtstructures
Existingbuiltstructureshavebeenusedtopositiveeffectasan anchorforperspectiveinanumberofprojects.Thisapproachisonly successfuliftheexistingbuildingsaretreatedasoneentireelement. InthecaseoftheTudorSquareprojectinSheffield,buildingshave beeninsertedasseparateimageobjects(Fig.4).Thishasresulted inanglesthatdonotmatchthoseonsite.
Fig.3. FatherCollinsPark,Dublin,Ireland.Discrepanciesindepictionofvegetationmaturity.VisualizationproducedandprovidedbyArArqIreland/MCOProjects,photograph byMelanieDownes.
relatingtotransport(trampowerlines,street-siderailings,etc.), havebeencompletelyomitted(Figs.5and6)ortheirvisualimpact reducedbycarefulangleandframing.This‘de-cluttering’canresult inaratherclinicalfinishtosectionsofthevisualization,whichoften appearscontradictorytothedetailedfinishinothersections.
Theimportanceofdepictingsitecontextinvisualizationsshould notbeoverlooked.Theareasurroundinganyproposed develop-menthasagreat effectonhow itlooksand feels.Accurate but notnecessarilydetaileddepictionofthesurroundingenvironment helpsorientate theviewer. Also,asa landscapeorarchitectural projectwillnever beexperiencedout ofcontext, omitting con-textualdetail,e.g.intheinterestofaesthetics,couldinfluencethe representationalvalidity.
Thelevelofdetailillustratedin existingbuildingsisa factor thatalsowarrantsconsideration,e.g.simplewire-linedepictionof
backgroundbuildingscanappearlessdistracting.Itcouldbeargued thatinspecificcasestheconceptof‘lessismore’mayhaveapositive effectontheoverallcomposition.
4.6. StreetfurnitureandLighting
Lightingandstreet furnitureweremappedas separate cate-goriesinthevisualanalysis.Thedepiction oflighting elements hasbeentreatedinasimilarmannertootherstreetfurniture ele-mentsinthemajorityof visualizations.Specificstreetfurniture elementsincludingrailings,lights,trafficlights,trafficsignage, lit-terbins,bollardsandsecuritycamerasarethecomponentsmost likelytobeomittedfromanyvisualization.Theseomissionsappear tobeacaseofselective‘de-cluttering’andaremostnoticeablein projectswherethevisualizationviewpointisfromastreetside.
Fig.5.JessopWest,TheUniversityofSheffield.Evidenceofforeground‘decluttering’throughtheremovalofbuiltstructurerelatingtotransportinfrastructure(trampower lines,street-siderailings,etc.)VisualizationproducedandprovidedbySauerbruchHutton,photographbyMelanieDownes.
De-clutteredvisualizationscontainfewerobjectsand are there-forefastertoproduce.Inaddition,theyarepossiblyconsidered moreaestheticallypleasingandthereforeamore effectivesales tool.
4.7. Materials
Thelevel ofdetailusedtoillustratematerialsishighly vari-able.Attentiontodetailofmaterialsrangesfromtheinclusionof
reflections,anduseofsubtletexturemapping,tothemorebasic useofflatcolourtoindicatechangesinmaterials.
Exact material specifications for proposed structures are unlikelytobedeterminedatthetimeofvisualizationwhichcalls intoquestionwhatlevelofdetailisappropriate(cf.Kingery-Page &Hahn,2012;Lange,2001).Intheinterestsofaccuracyand trans-parencyitmaybemoreappropriatetoonlyindicatematerialwhere specificationshavebeenagreed,ratherthanpresentvisualizations toapublicwhowillnevergettoexperiencethemasillustrated.
4.8. People
Peoplehavebeenincludedinthemajorityofvisualizations ana-lyzed.Thisisinteresting,asuntilsomeyearsagothepresenceof peopleinvisualizationswastheexception(seee.g.Ervin,2001). Thecarefulpositioningofpeopleorsilhouettefigurescanbeused asatooltoengagetheviewer.Forexampletheuseofpeoplein theforegroundisparticularlyeffectiveatdrawingtheviewerin. Theoppositeeffectoccurswhereanabsenceofpeopleinthe fore-groundcanhavethenegativeeffectofleavingtheviewerfeeling disconnectedfromthescene.
Thenumberofpeopleincludedinavisualizationtellsastoryas tothepotentialuseofthespace.Withvisualizationsusedforpublic consultationthisshouldbeakeyconsideration.Depictingabusy pedestrianstreetasanemptyspacedoesnotcreateanaccurate impressionofthesite.Theoppositepracticeofoverpopulatinga spacehasthepotentialtoraiseexpectationstoohigh.
4.9. Traffic
Theillustrationoftrafficelementsvariesfromprojecttoproject. Inanumberofprojectstrafficisshownata lesservolumethan wouldbeexpectedtobepassingthroughorparkedinthearea. ThisisparticularlynoteworthyintheChimneyParkvisualizations (Fig.6)whereaplayspacesharesaboundarywiththestreetand notrafficwasillustrated.Depictingverybusystreetswith mini-maltraffic,possiblyintheinterestsofaestheticsastheuncluttered sceneshows theproposeddevelopmentin apositive light, and createsafalseimpressionofthecontext.
4.10. Weather,timeofday/year
Allvisualizationsshowdryweatherandmostdepictsunshine throughthecastingofshadows.Thetimeofyearillustratedis pre-dominantlylatespringorsummerasdepictedbythefoliageon thetreesandclothesthepeoplearewearing.Someinconsistencies werenotedwiththerepresentationofshadows,whereinsome casesthebuiltstructuresweredepictedascastingshadowsbutthe peoplewerenot.
Weatherasatooltocreateatmosphericeffectandtoadddepth isunderused.Projects,suchaspublicparksandbusypedestrian zones,couldbenefitfrombeingshownasaseriesofvisualizations throughouttheseasons.Especiallyprojectsin anurbancontext wouldbenefit frombeingshownatnight time,asthesespaces potentiallywillhaveanintenseuseatnighttoo.Theproduction costsforthevisualizationswould risebutsuchrepresentations wouldgiveamoreholisticsenseoftheproposedspacesfor poten-tialusers.
5. Discussion
5.1. Whatyouseeisnotalwayswhatyouget:nowwhat?
Communicationisthefundamentalpurposeofproducing visu-alizations throughout the planning and design phases of any landscape,urbandesignorarchitecturalproject.Communicationis
achievedtodifferingdegreesinallthevisualizationsanalyzed,but isithonestcommunication?Visualizationshelptocommunicate proposeddevelopmentstoplanners,clientsandthepublic.Given thecostandpermanencyinvolvedinsuchprojects,itisimperative thatatransparentcommunicationofdesignproposalsremainsthe focusofallvisualizations.
Akeypointthatrequiresaddressingistheneedforincreased levelsof transparency in production and presentationmethods ofallvisualizationstobeusedforcommunicatingproposalswith thepublic,stakeholders,andplanners.Presentationmethodscould incorporateawayofinformingviewersofthelimitationsofthe visualization,whilealsosuggestingoptimalviewingformatand viewingdistance.The introductionof “BestPractice Guidelines” couldfunctionasamechanismofachievingmoretransparent com-municationthroughvisualizations.Regardingtheviewingposition, whichisakeycriterion,itcouldbee.g.requestedthatvisualizations shouldbeproducedwithafixedheightrepresentingaverageeye levelforeveryproject.Thereoccurringissueofomissionofstreet furnitureelementscouldalsobeaddressed.Excludingamyriadof whatcouldbeconsideredvisualinterruptionsisatemptationbut itmayresultinarepresentationofaproposalthatdiffersgreatly fromthefinaldeliveredproject.
Theindicationofsitecontextinadditiontodesignproposals notonlyprovidesvisualanchors,butalsocommunicatesimportant informationabout‘senseofplace’.Furthermore,thecombination ofalowlevelofrendereddetailofthesitecontextwithamore detailedrenderingofthedesignproposaldoesnotdetractfromthe overallimpactofthevisualization.
Consideringthediversenatureofthespacesbeingproposedin landscapeandarchitecturepracticeitisimportanttoacknowledge theneedtoprotectthevarietyofcreativeapproachespossiblein theproductionofvisualization.Solutionsthathelpincrease trans-parencyinproductionandpresentationmethodsshouldseekto allowthiscreativitytoremain.
Theiterativenatureofdesignmeansthatnoteverydesigndetail mayhavebeenresolvedatthetimeofvisualizationoratinitial planningstages.Changestodesignsmayoccurthroughthe pro-cessuptoandsometimesduringconstruction,whichmeansthere willbedifferencesbetweenthevisualizationandthefinishedsite. E.g.asmoothandshinygranitesurfacethatcouldpotentiallybe veryslipperyintherain,wouldneedtogetsandedforsafety rea-sons,thusresultinginadifferencebetweenvisualizationandbuilt project.
5.2. Productionstandards:howitcouldbeinthefuture
Mostprojectsinthepublicrealmrequireevidenceofpublic con-sultation.Often,insuchcases,visualizationsareused.Therefore, standardizingthequalityofvisualizationsisamatterofgrowing importance.
AccordingtoSheppard(1989)landscapevisualizationsneedto achievethreefundamentalobjectives:
•Conveyunderstandingoftheproposedproject. •Demonstratecredibilityofthevisualizationitself. •Avoidbiasinresponsestotheproposedproject.
industryandcouldprovideapositiveintroductiontothe appli-cationofbestpracticeguidelines.
5.3. Productionguidelines,adouble-edgedsword?
Thecreationand adoptionofasetoflandscapevisualization productionguidelinescouldbeinterpretedinbothpositive and negativeways.Recognizedproceduresenablingtransparent doc-umentation of production methods could serve to protect the designer.Thismightapplyincaseswherethedesignchangesafter theuseofvisualizationsintheprojectapprovalprocessorwhere avisualizationislegallychallenged.Professionallyagreed proce-dureswouldalsoservetoprotectthedesignerfromclientpressure. Iflandscapevisualizationguidelinesaretobeadopted,accuracy ofcontentmustbeclearlydefined.Misleadingguidelineshavethe potentialtoproduceanequallynegativeeffectastheabsenceof guidelines.Theproblemsarisingfromtheapplicationofpotentially inaccurateguidelinesisevidentinsomerecentexamplesof visu-alizationsrelatingtothesitingofwindfarmdevelopmentswhere methodsofproductionand presentationhavebeensubjecttoa certainlevelofscrutiny(seee.g.Macaskill,2010).
Theadoptionof‘BestPracticeGuidelines’couldpotentiallylimit creativerepresentationandleadtoacertainlevelofuniformity. Althoughthismaybehelpfulatdecisionmakinglevelinthe plan-ningprocessitmayresultinallvisualizationslookingverysimilar (cf.Kingery-Page&Hahn,2012).Thismayresultintheproduction oftwokindsofvisualizationinthefuture–oneleadbyguidelines fortransparentcommunicationofdesignproposals,whichcouldbe accompaniedbyanothermorecreative‘moodboard’typewhich invokesartisticlicensetocommunicatemoreephemeralaspects suchasatmosphereandsenseofplace.
6. Conclusions
Visualizations play an important role in planning decisions affecting thelandscape and form partof theLandscape Visual ImpactAssessment for any projectrequiring an Environmental ImpactAssessment.TheEIAisintendedtohelpensure“the pre-dicted effects, and the scope for reducing them, are properly understoodbythepublicand therelevant competentauthority beforeitmakesitsdecision”(DCLG,2006,p.7).
Visualizationsplayanequallyimportantroleinprojects situ-atedinthepublicrealmwherepublicconsultationisrequired.In thesecasesaccuratevisualcommunicationofprojectobjectives couldbeconsideredevenmorecrucialastheyinvolvenon-expert viewers.
Thisresearchhasrevealedinconsistenciesofproduction val-uesandaccuracyappliedinthecreationofvisualizationsdepicting designed landscapes and the publicrealm. Although questions relatingtoappropriatelevelsofrealismremaintobeanswered, thescopeforaccuratevisualcommunicationremains.Issuessuch astheomissionofexistingstructuralcontent,unrealisticcamera anglesandinaccuratedepictionofscalearefactorsthatcouldbe addressedpresently.However,this mightnotbeintheinterest of developers(or clients in thewider sense) for which visual-izationsoftenfunctionasthe‘prettypicture’tosellaparticular product.
Thevisualizationsdiscussedherearestaticandtypically pro-ducedforprintingorforon-screenviewing.Itisthenormthatthey willbevieweddisconnectedfromtheactualenvironment,e.g.in anoffice.Recently,mobiledeviceaugmentedrealityapplications havebeendeveloped(Lange,2011).Althoughanaugmented real-itymodelcanstillbedeceptive,vagueandinaccurateitprovides theuserwithanaugmentedon-siteexperienceshowingaproject
proposal overlaid on the image of the real-world as captured throughthecameraofamobiledevice.
This study provides a qualitative, comparative analysis of ex ante visualizations with ex post photography of landscape and architectural projects. In future research, alternative ana-lyticalor perceptualapproaches, e.g.following anexperimental research design (cf. Lewis, 2012) could be pursued to explore howcommunityresidents,plannersanddecision-makersrespond to differences in visualizations of proposed projects and post-constructionphotographyandwhateffectthosedifferenceshave ontheirjudgments.
Acknowledgments
Theauthorswishtoacknowledgeand thanktheanonymous reviewersfortheircommentsandthefollowingprovidersof visu-alizations:
•SheffieldCityCouncil:TudorSquare/OpenSpace,Sheffield,UK. •ArArqIreland/MCOProjects:FatherCollinsPark,Dublin,Ireland. •SauerbruchHutton:JessopWest,TheUniversityofSheffield,UK. •Snug & Outdoor: Chimney Park, Dublin Docklands,
Ireland.
References
Appleyard,D.(1977).Understandingprofessionalmedia:Issues,theoryandaresearch agenda.Berkeley:InstituteofUrbanandRegionalDevelopment,Universityof California.ReprintNo.150fromHumanBehaviorandEnvironment2.
Bruce,V.,Green,P.R.,&Georgeson,M.A.(1996).Visualperception,physiology psy-chologyandecology.EastSussex:PsychologyPress.
Daniel,T.C.(2001).WhitherScenicBeauty?Visuallandscapequalityassessmentin the21stcentury.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,54,267–281.
Daniel,T.C.,&Meitner,M.(2001).Representationalvalidityoflandscape visualiza-tions:Theeffectsofgraphicalrealismonperceivedscenicbeautyofforestvistas. JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,21(1),61–72.
Department forCommunities LocalGovernment.(2006).Environmentalimpact assessment:Aguidetoprocedures.Tonbridge:ThomasTelford.
Ervin,S.M.(2001).Digitallandscapemodelingandvisualization:Aresearchagenda. LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,54,49–62.
European Commission. (1985). EIA directive on environmental impact
assess-ment (online). Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/eia-legalcontext.htmAccessed30.01.14
European Commission. (2003). Directive on public participation in respect of
the drawing up of certainplans and programmes (online). Available from:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:156:0017:0024: EN:PDFAccessed30.01.14
Gibson,J.J.(1950).Theperceptionofthevisualworld.Cambridge,USA:TheRiverside Press.
Gill,L.,Lange,E.,Morgan,E.,&Romano,D.(2013).Ananalysisofusageof dif-ferenttypesofvisualisationmediawithinacollaborativeplanningworkshop environment.EnvironmentandPlanningB:PlanningandDesign,40(4),742–754.
Kingery-Page,K.,&Hahn,H.(2012).Theaestheticsofdigitalrepresentation:Realism, abstractionandkitsch.JoLA,7(2),68–75.
LandscapeInstitute.(2011).Landscape InstituteAdviceNote01/11. Photography
andphotomontageinlandscapeandvisualassessment(online).Availablefrom:
http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/PDF/Contribute/LIPhotographyAdviceNote 01-11.pdfAccessed30.01.14
LandscapeInstitutewiththeInstituteofEnvironmentalManagementAssessment. (2013).Guidelinesforlandscapeandvisualimpactassessment(3rded.).London andNewYork:Routledge.
Lange,E.(1994).Integrationofcomputerizedvisualsimulationandvisual assess-mentinenvironmentalplanning.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,30,99–112.
Lange,E.(2001).Thelimitsofrealism:Perceptionsofvirtuallandscapes.Landscape andUrbanPlanning,54,163–182.
Lange, E. (2005).Issues andquestions for research in communicating withthe
publicthroughvisualizations(online).Availablefrom:http://www.kolleg.loel.
hs-anhalt.de/studiengaenge/mla/mlafl/conf/pdf/conf2005/11langec.pdf
Accessed30.01.14
Lange,E.(2011).99volumeslater:Wecanvisualise.Nowwhat?Landscapeand UrbanPlanning,100,403–406.
Lange,E.,&Hehl-Lange,S.(2005).Combiningaparticipatoryplanningapproachwith avirtuallandscapemodelforthesitingofwindturbines.JournalofEnvironmental PlanningandManagement,48(6),833–852.
Lewis,J.L.(2012).Moreartthanscience:Thesourcesandeffectsofstylisticvariation invisualizationforplanninganddesign.EnvironmentandPlanningB:Planning andDesign,39(3),551–565.
Macaskill,M.(2010).Firms‘rigimagestodownplayturbines’.SundayTimes Scot-land 16/05/10. Available from: http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/scotnews10/ 100516-rigpix.htmlAccessed30.01.14
Macdonald, A. (2007). Thevisual issue – An investigation into the techniques
andmethodology usedinwindfarmcomputer visualisations. Availablefrom:
http://docs.wind-watch.org/visualissue.pdfAccessed30.01.14
MacFarlane,R.,Stagg,H.,Turner,K.,&Lievesley,M.(2005).Peeringthroughthe smoke?Tensionsinlandscapevisualisation.Computers,EnvironmentandUrban Systems,29,341–359.
McCormick,B.H.,DeFanti,T.A.,&Brown,M.D.(1987).Visualizationinscientific computing.ACMSIGGRAPH,21,6.
Mitchell,W.J.(1992).Thereconfiguredeye.Visualtruthinthepost-photographicera. Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Repton,H.(Loudon,J.C.Ed.)(1840).Thelandscapegardeningandlandscape
archi-tectureofthelateHumpryRepton,Esq.beinghisentireworksonthesesubjects.
London:Longman&Co.
Ribe,R.G.,Armstrong,E.T.,&Gobster,P.H.(2002).Scenicvistasandthechanging policylandscape.Visualizingandtestingtheroleofvisualresourcesin ecosys-temmanagement.LandscapeJournal,21(1),42–66.
Sanoff,H.(1991).Visualresearchmethodsindesign.NewYork:VanNostrand Rein-hold.
Sheppard,S.R.J.(1989).Visualsimulation.Auser’sguideforarchitects,engineers,and planners.NewYork:VanNostrandReinhold.
Sheppard,S.R.J.(2001).Guidanceforcrystalballgazers:Developingacodeofethics forlandscapevisualization.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,54,183–199.
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). (2006). Visual Representation of Windfarms.
GoodPracticeGuidance. ReportNo: FO3 AA308/2 (online).Available from:
http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A305436.pdfAccessed30.01.14
University ofNewcastle. (2002).VisualAssessmentof Windfarms BestPractice. ScottishNaturalHeritageCommissionedReportF01AA303A(online). Avail-able from: http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissionedreports/ f01aa303a.pdfAccessed30.01.14
Watzek,K.,&Ellsworth,J.(1994).Perceivedscaleaccuracyofcomputervisual sim-ulations.LandscapeJournal,13(1),21–36.
Wergles,N.,&Muhar,A.(2009).Theroleofcomputervisualizationinthe commu-nicationofurbandesign–Acomparisonofviewerresponsestovisualizations versuson-sitevisits.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,91,171–182.
Zube,E.H.,Sell,J.L.,&Taylor,J.G.(1982).Landscapeperception:Research, applica-tionandtheory.LandscapePlanning,9,1–33.
MelanieDownesisagraduateofthePostgraduateMAinLandscapeArchitecture (Distinction)attheUniversityofSheffield.ShealsoholdsaMastersinComputer Science(MultimediaSystemsM.Sc.)fromTrinityCollege,DublinandBachelorof Design(B.Des.CraftDesignMetalworkandJewellery,1stClassHonours)fromthe NationalCollegeofArt&Design,Dublin.PriortohercareerinLandscapeArchitecture MelanieworkedextensivelyintheworldofvisualmediaasanArtDirectorforFilm andTelevision,GraphicDesignerforFilmandMultimediaandasaProfessional PhotographerwithpublishedworkincludingFilmstills,Corporate,Press,andSports subjects.
