Which is the Appropriate 3D Visualization Type for Participatory Landscape Planning Workshops? A Portfolio of Their Effectiveness

Abstract

Communication and information are central aspects in participatory spatial planning. This study analyzes the effectiveness of current 3D landscape visualizations in communicating the required spatial information. The focus was on measuring 3D visualizations' effectiveness in participatory planning processes according to the level of various supporting functions for, for example, information processing or achieving the objectives of different planning phases. The effectiveness of abstract and realistic 3D visualization types was tested in case studies using qualitative social – empirical research methods. In order to provide a systematic overview of the results, a portfolio analysis was carried out. The benefit of the visualization types for different planning tasks and their quality of representing the required planning content were evaluated. The results show that the different strengths of both abstract and realistic 3D visualization types are required in participatory workshops. They are especially efficient at motivating stakeholders and enlarging the information base. However, until now they have proved to be less suitable for the development of new ideas and decision making. In particular, the realistic visualization type was ranked as very attractive for the purpose of evaluation, but the representation of the required spatial information needed enhancement. On the basis of the portfolio, focusing further research on optimizing the 3D visualization types for analysis and evaluation tasks is suggested.

Use of Video and 3D Scenario Visualisation to Rate Vegetation Screens for Integrating Buildings into the Landscape

“…Some include digital photomontage [13,27] and the generation of various scenarios and video in 3D [5,28,29]. The use of the 3D generation of scenarios and videos for landscape visualisation and environmental planning is constantly increasing [30][31][32][33].…”

On the Usability and Usefulness of 3d (Geo)visualizations – A Focus on Virtual Reality Environments

“…3), one might hypothesize that the closer the visualization is to 'reality', the easier it may be for the urban designers as users to comprehend what is being proposed and make decisions (Hayek et al, 2011;Herbert & Chen, 2014). On the other hand, even though it might present certain advantages in some cases, such as revealing information that may not have been otherwise visible (Li et al, 2010), or people might prefer it for a set of tasks (Çöltekin, et al, 2015) there is strong evidence that for reading plots (Dall'Acqua et al, 2013), or detecting anomalies (Borkin et al, 2011), 3D visualizations might rather hinder their users than help them.…”

Enhancing ‘Boundary Work' Through the Use of Virtual Reality: Exploring the Potential within Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

“…The need for such prescription has been suggested by a number of academics (Hayek, 2011;Lai et al, 2010;Sheppard, 2001Sheppard, , 2005Sheppard & Cizek, 2009). Yet, being prescriptive has many challenges and may also be controversial.…”