The need for realistic visualizations in participatory spatial planning. Tessa Hoogerwerf, Ron van Lammeren

Transcription

1 The need for realistic visualizations in participatory spatial planning Tessa Hoogerwerf, Ron van Lammeren

2 The need for realistic visualizations in participatory spatial planning three dimensional visual representation of data that has a geographic reference

3 The need for realistic visualizations in participatory spatial planning stakeholders are invited participate in the spatial planning process

4 Outline Introduction Objectives Theory Survey Study Area Methodology and Material Data Analysis Results Discussion Conclusion Recommendations

5 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

6 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

7 Objective To study people s need for realism in visualizations during different participation levels Methodology Participation theory Web based survey 3D visualizations types

8 Theory Arnstein (1969) Citizen control Delegated power Partnership Placation Consultation Informing Therapy Manipulation Kalk (1996) Citizen as Decision maker Partly responsible Agenda maker Co producer Deliverer of ideas Conversation partner Customer

9 Decrease participation Increase number actors Increase participation Decrease number actors Edelenbos and Monnikhof (1998) Co decide Co produce Advise Consult Inform Theory 5. co decide 4. co produce 3. advise 2. Consult 1. inform

10 Survey Study Area

11 Survey Methodology & Material Data Dutch National topographic data Conceptual landscape design of Meerstad Digital photographs Visualizations Abstract 3D Analyst Extension of ArcView (ESRI) Semi realistic 3D StudioMax (Discreet) Realistic PixMaker Pro (PixAround)

12 Survey Methodology & Material

13 Survey Methodology & Material Survey Available as web application Results stored in database Respondents Dienst Landelijk Gebied (DLG) Wageningen University Alterra Spinlab Students Spatial Planning and Design People related to Project Meerstad

14 Survey Data Analysis Response Response Range: respondents Average Response: 31% Population Respondents with visualization experience Respondents without visualization experience Statistical Analysis Percentages of frequencies for each question

15 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 Co produce Co decide

16 Survey Results Abstract Semi-realistic Realistic Percentage respondents Inform Consult Advise Co-produce Co-decide Participation levels

17 Survey Results Inform Recognition of the area (both semi realistic and realistic) Readability of the image (realistic) Consult Recognition of the area (both semi realistic and realistic) Readability of the image (semi realistic) Advise Recognition of the area (realistic)

18 Survey Results Co produce Ability to visualize essence of the area (both semi realistic and realistic) Readability of the image (realistic) Co decide Recognition of the area (semi realistic)

19 Survey Results Abstract Semi-realistic Realistic 5 4 Suitability inventory analysis design presentation Planning activities

20 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

21 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)

22 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 3D visualizations Conversion data not optimal

23 Conclusions Survey results indicate that professionals have a varying need for realism during different participation levels Need for semi realistic visualization in levels of inform, advise and co produce Need for realistic visualizations in levels of consult and co decide Professionals consider realistic visualization type suitable for inventory and presentation activities

24 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

25 Research Questions?