Landscape Aesthetics. Prof. Dr. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey Sibyl Brunner Ana Stritih

Transcription

1 Landscape Aesthetics Prof. Dr. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey Sibyl Brunner Ana Stritih

2 Perception of landscape 2 49

3 Perception of landscape structure Weather Forest Habitat Recreation Energy Work Drinking water Home Landscape services Lake Tree Landscape Functions House Landscape influenced by people in two ways a product of our actions in space inner representation of our perception Meadow 3 49

4 Perception of landscape structure Today visual evaluation: Visual perception, aesthetics 4 49

5 Landscape perception Key aspects (Gerhards, 2003) : Outer, sensually perceivable appearance of nature and landscape All senses are included Not absolute, but subject to changing values in society Operationalization through concepts such as beauty, uniqueness, Duality of what objectively exists and what is perceived subjectively 5 49

6 Visual aspects in planning 6 49

7 Visual aspects in planning Art. 78 BV Natur- und Heimatschutz Für den Natur- und Heimatschutz sind die Kantone zuständig. Der Bund ( ) schont Landschaften, Ortsbilder, geschichtliche Stätten sowie Natur- und Kulturdenkmäler; er erhält sie ungeschmälert, wenn das öffentliche Interesse es gebietet. Art. 1 Bundesgesetz Natur- und Heimatschutz ( ) das heimatliche Landschafts- und Ortsbild, die geschichtlichen Stätten sowie die Natur- und Kulturdenkmäler des Landes zu schonen, zu schützen sowie ihre Erhaltung und Pflege zu fördern. 7 49

8 Lack of implementation Traditional nature protection focused on natural-scientific and ecological aspects Difficult to evaluate objectively and quantitatively due to strong subjective component Existing methods and procedures for evaluation are often complex and not transparent Jessel,

9 Lack of implementation Traditional nature protection focused on natural-scientific and ecological aspects Difficult to evaluate objectively and quantitatively due to strong subjective component Existing methods and procedures for evaluation are often complex and not transparent requires (1) Inclusion in political agenda => LABES indicators (2) Operationalization of landscape perception => concepts of landscape aesthetics (3) Innovative evaluation and communication methods => visualizations 9 49

10 Perception of landscape Objective conditions Individual-related influences: feelings, experiences, Situation-related influences: weather, activity, Perception and evaluation Gerhard, 2003

11 Personal influences Differences depending on: Personal interest, age, education, social status, Regional values, customs, traditions, Personal and societal development in time 11 49

12 Evolutionarily determined perception an important basis for considering aesthetical components in planning 12 49

13 Evolutionarily determined perception Ted Talk Dennis Dutton: a Darwinian Theory of Beauty 13 49

14 LABES Indicators Cognitive concepts of landscape aesthetics Legibility Mystery Orientation Authenticity Identification Thélin and Roth, 2010 Module CS = Data mostly not available, extensive social-scientific research needed to operationalize

15 Operationalization 1. Evolutionarily determined requirements for landscape aesthetics, e.g. legibility, orientation, (see LABES indicators) OPERATIONALIZATION 2. Requirements for landscape aesthetics can be related to landscape elements and structures 15 49

16 Concepts of landscape aesthetics Stimulation, surprise, variety Indicators: Preference for diverse, contrast-rich, non-ordinary landscapes with high edge density 16 49

17 Concepts of landscape aesthetics Legibility, orientation, information content Indicators: Preference for spacious landscapes that offer a clear view, with leading elements and landmarks for orientation 17 49

18 Concepts of landscape aesthetics Home, safety, security, identification Indicators: Preference for regionally typical, familiar landscape elements, gentle and harmonious colors and shapes 18 49

19 Concepts of landscape aesthetics Relaxation, leisure, contemplation Indicators: Preference for peaceful, fragrant landscapes, free from random, sudden movements 19 49

20 Concepts of landscape aesthetics Freedom, independence, self-realization Indicators: Preference for undisturbed, wild, natural landscapes 20 49

21 Trade-offs Challenge: landscape-specific, balanced optimum as a measure of landscape quality

22 Structural metrics Landscape structure Ecological landscape structural metrics e.g. degree of fragmentation Ecological processes functions e.g. habitat function Aesthetic landscape structural metrics Aesthetic landscape quality e.g. information function from Fry, 2009 Common metrics? 22 49

23 Structural metrics Concept Dimensions Landscape attributes Indicators Fry,

24 Structural metrics Concept Dimensions Landscape attributes Indicators Fry,

25 Structural metrics Concept Dimensions Landscape attributes Indicators Fry,

26 Interpretation of structural metrics Caution conflicting normative evaluation of ecological and visual indicators ecological indicators depend on species, visual indicators depend on the observer (certain concepts are less sensitive!!) both indicators depend on context/the surrounding landscape 26 49

27 Example: Jungfrau Master thesis M. Droz, Salzburg, 2007 LSM based on DEM25, Vector25 (basic data) Swissimage, PK25 (orientation) 27 49

28 Example: Jungfrau Individual indicators 28 49

29 Example: Jungfrau Cluster analysis and classification Not including local values

30 Difficulties in evaluation Data availability Scale Comparability Limited perception Culture Ethics Education Experience Demands Internal factors Physical limitations External filters Landscape Biophysical structure & elements 30 49

31 Physical limitations Which field is darker, A or B? 31 49

32 Physical limitations 32 49

33 Difficulties in evaluation Data availability Scale Comparability Limited perception Can be partially addressed for certain aspects of landscape aesthetics through evolutionarily determined collective perception 33 49

34 Evaluation approaches Expert-based methods Landscape Biophysical structures & elements Expert/design parameters Sensory parameters Cognitive constructs Visual landscape quality Perception-based methods 34 49

35 Evaluation approaches Expert-based methods: Standardized methods to assess landscape parameters Techniques a) Analysis of spatial composition b) Assessment forms The role of the observer is influenced by the relevance of the viewpoint and the number of observers

36 Example of landscape aesthetics evaluation I Assessment of dominant landscape elements (only visual, with no influence of neighboring areas) 1 = very good; 5 = very poor; steps: 0.5 II Deductions (disturbing factors and negative influences of neighboring areas) 0.5 = noticeable; 1 = disturbing; 1.5 = very disturbing III Additions (positive influences of neighboring areas) 0.5 = noticeable; 1 = positive; 1.5 = very positive Total value of visual landscape quality (I + II - III) 36 49

37 Evaluation approaches Perception-based methods: Interviews or questionnaires with (potential) users of a landscape Techniques a) Photographs b) Imaginary walks c) Ranking of images

38 Evaluation approaches Exercise: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the two evaluation approaches? Perception-based, userdependent methods Expert-based, userindependent methods Pro Contra 38 49

39 Landscape planning for the future Schlieren today Schlieren in the future Down-zoning, rezoning, decrease of agriculture, increase in population and employment, + inhabitants, + employees, + Limmattalbahn but: landscape aesthetics in the future? 39 49

40 Maps and plans From the Richtplan of Wallis

41 3D-visualizations in the past Hand sketch, Würenlos, current state (1950): Image: Ruedin, C., Hanak, M. (eds), Hans Marti Pionier der Raumplanung, gta Verlag, Zürich, p

42 3D-visualizations in the past Hand sketch, Würenlos, target state (1950): Image: Ruedin, C., Hanak, M. (eds), Hans Marti Pionier der Raumplanung, gta Verlag, Zürich, p

43 and today Digital Terrain Model (DTM) and GIS vectors of land cover/use data Orthophoto draped over the DTM Overview perspective 0 3D house models with generic façade textures 3D object model of a steal bridge Adding 3D objects to the basic 3D landscape model Billboard of a young tree Close-up view of an avalanche protection site 43 49

44 and today interested: FS 2017: LVLM 2

45 Example: riverfront Two options to design the riverfront in Dietikon 45 49

46 Example: riverfront How many buildings are located within the riverfront area for each option? 46 49

47 Example: riverfront Which buildings are affected by floods for each option? 47 49

48 Example: riverfront What is the potential for recreation for each option? 48 49

49 Example: riverfront What is the potential for recreation for each option? 49 49

50 Visual-acoustic simulations Video: VisAsim_Filmsequenz.mp

51 Use of 3D-visualizations Including inhabitants in the planning process Illustrating planning objectives Elaborating planning options Evaluating planning options Communicating planning outcomes Conveying knowledge about the environment 51 49

52 Learning goals and materials Learning goals: you can explain the concept of landscape aesthetics and the related challenges in landscape planning know how landscape aesthetics is included in law and policy know the factors that influence the perception of landscape and can explain them using examples know the different concepts of landscape aesthetics and related indicators/structural metrics know different methods for the evaluation of landscape aesthetics, their (dis)advantages, and challenges in evaluation know the planning processes where visual aspects are relevant, and how 3Dvisualizations can support these processes Slides and background literature will be available for download on the course website