here

The need for realistic visualizations in
participatory spatial planning
Tessa Hoogerwerf, Ron van Lammeren
The need for realistic visualizations in
participatory spatial planning
threedimensional visual representation of
data that has a geographic reference
The need for realistic visualizations in
participatory spatial planning
stakeholders are invited participate
in the spatial planning process
Outline
• Introduction
• Objectives
• Theory
• Survey
• Study Area
• Methodology and Material
• Data Analysis
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Recommendations
Introduction
Why are (3D) visualizations used
in participatory spatial planning?
• To convey spatial information
• To visualize spatial transformation (over time)
• To visualize spatial scenarios
• Close representation of reality
• Involvement of third dimension in spatial transformations
Introduction
Why is realism of visualizations important
in participatory spatial planning?
Advantages
• Little interpretation needed to understand the information
• Detailed information about spatial transformations
Disadvantages
• Unfocussed design discussions
• Undeserved expectations
Objective
To study people’s need for realism in visualizations
during different participation levels
Methodology
• Participation theory
• Webbased survey
• 3D visualizations types
Theory
Arnstein (1969)
•Citizen control
•Delegated power
•Partnership
•Placation
•Consultation
•Informing
•Therapy
•Manipulation
Kalk (1996)
“Citizen as”
•Decision maker
•Partly responsible
•Agenda maker
•Coproducer
•Deliverer of ideas
•Conversation partner
•Customer
• Codecide
• Coproduce
• Advise
• Consult
• Inform
n
tio
ipa ctors
rtic
p a be r a
ase num
cre
De rease
I nc
Edelenbos and
Monnikhof (1998)
I nc
De rease
cre
ase parti
num cipa
be tion
ra
cto
rs
Theory
5. codecide
4. coproduce
3. advise
2. Consult
1. inform
Survey
Study Area
Survey
Methodology & Material
Data
• Dutch National topographic data
• Conceptual landscape design of Meerstad
• Digital photographs
Visualizations
• Abstract – 3D Analyst Extension of ArcView (ESRI)
• Semirealistic – 3D StudioMax (Discreet)
• Realistic – PixMaker Pro (PixAround)
Survey
Methodology & Material
Survey
Methodology & Material
Survey
• Available as webapplication
• Results stored in database
Respondents
• Dienst Landelijk Gebied (DLG)
• Wageningen University
• Alterra
• Spinlab
• Students Spatial Planning and Design
• People related to Project Meerstad
Survey
Data Analysis
Response
• Response Range: 53 – 21 respondents
• Average Response: 31%
Population
• Respondents with visualization experience
• Respondents without visualization experience
Statistical Analysis
• Percentages of frequencies for each question
Survey
Edelenbos and
Monnikhof (1998)
•Inform
Fifth part of the survey:
• case situations formulated based on
participation levels
• visualization type selected for each
case situation
• predefined reasons valued with
importance (least important – most important)
•Consult
•Advise
•Coproduce
•Codecide
Survey
Results
Percentage respondents
Abstract
Semi-realistic
Realistic
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inform
Consult
Advise
Co-produce
Participation levels
Co-decide
Survey
Results
Inform
• Recognition of the area (both semirealistic and realistic)
• Readability of the image (realistic)
Consult
• Recognition of the area (both semirealistic and realistic)
• Readability of the image (semirealistic)
Advise
• Recognition of the area (realistic)
Survey
Results
Coproduce
• Ability to visualize essence of the area (both semirealistic and
realistic)
• Readability of the image (realistic)
Codecide
• Recognition of the area (semirealistic)
Survey
Results
Abstract
Semi-realistic
Realistic
5
Suitability
4
3
2
1
0
inventory
analysis
design
Planning activities
presentation
Survey
Results
Abstract and Semi Realistic visualization types
Advantages
• Less level of detail
• Ability to visualize spatial problem areas
• Ability to develop spatial scenarios
(current – future situation)
Disadvantages
• Interpretation geometric objects
Survey
Results
Realistic visualization type
Advantages
• Recognition of the area
• Readability of the visualization
• Ability to make spatial transformation visible
(current – future situation)
Disadvantages
• Interaction in the visualization (orientation and navigation)
Discussion
• Number of questions too high
• The Internet as medium to distribute questionnaire not optimal
• Size of visualization files too large for regular computers
• Interaction methods still limited to navigation and orientation
• Inability to directly put feedback into the 3Dvisualizations
• Conversion data not optimal
Conclusions
• Survey results indicate that professionals have a varying need
for realism during different participation levels
Need for semirealistic visualization in levels of inform, advise and
coproduce
Need for realistic visualizations in levels of consult and codecide
• Professionals consider realistic visualization type suitable for
inventory and presentation activities
Recommendations
• Same research with more respondents
• Same research with other participants in planning process
• Research on other requirements of visualizations
• Research on visualizations with another degree of realism
Research
Questions ?