G

L

Ic

Ca

b

c

a

ARRAA

KPELEVC

1

ugitrtp2a

c(

0d

ARTICLE IN PRESSModel

AND-1941; No. of Pages 11

Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

dentifying strengths and weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effectiveommunication of future alternatives

hristopher J. Pettit a,∗, Christopher M. Raymondb, Brett A. Bryanc, Hayden Lewisa

Future Farming Systems Research Division, Victorian Department of Primary Industries, AustraliaCentre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of South Australia, AustraliaCSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Wait Campus, Urrbrae, South Australia, Australia

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 19 April 2010eceived in revised form 6 January 2011ccepted 7 January 2011vailable online xxx

eywords:articipatory decision-makingnvironmental modellingandscape visualisationvaluationirtual globelimate change

a b s t r a c t

Visualisation technologies are powerful tools for communicating the scientific outcomes of environ-mental planning models. This study specifically explores the strengths and weaknesses of landscapevisualisation techniques in environmental planning by drawing upon insights from the multi-agencyLower Murray Landscape Futures (LMLF) integrated modelling and analysis project in south-easternAustralia. The project explored spatially explicit policy options and scenarios for assessing the impactsof achieving regional natural resource management targets. Alternative landscape futures were com-municated using a range of visualisation techniques available online. We assessed the strengths andweaknesses of the suite of visualisation products deployed for communicating landscape futures to twoaudiences (i) current users comprising environmental managers and planners working within the studyarea and (ii) future users comprising university students currently studying spatial information sciencesas part of their environmental management program. Semi-structured interviews and website evalu-ation surveys were undertaken with current users and future users, respectively. Results indicate thatboth audiences appreciated the environmental planning and investment decision support strengths ofthe visualisation products. The current users had concerns around the target audience and the nature and

extent of communications and stakeholder engagement in product development. The future user groupwere more interested in the visual clarity of the visualisation products. End user feedback provideda number of useful recommendations in relation to how the visualisation products could be refined toimprove the communication effectiveness and end user experience. We conclude by presenting a numberof future directions for landscape visualisation science and communication of environmental modellingoutcomes.

. Introduction

Spatial information is crucial in environmental planning and issed in a number of ways to support both operational and strate-ic decisions. The important dimensions of spatial informationnclude its collection, management, analysis, and representationo end users. The application of spatial information to target envi-onmental planning has traditionally focused on the production of

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

wo-dimensional maps which have followed the standard princi-les of cartographical design (e.g. Blaschke, 2005; Naidoo et al.,008; Osborne et al., 2001; Phua and Minowa, 2005). The recentdvent of virtual globes, such as Google Earth, Microsoft Vir-

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 8341 2407; fax: +61 3 9347 6056.E-mail addresses: christopher.pettit@dpi.vic.gov.au (C.J. Pettit),

hris.raymond@enviroconnect.com.au (C.M. Raymond), Brett.Bryan@csiro.auB.A. Bryan), Hayden.Lewis@dpi.vic.gov.au (H. Lewis).

169-2046/$ – see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rioi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.01.001

Crown Copyright © 2011 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

tual Earth, ESRI’s ArcExplorer, and NASA’s World Wind providesan opportunity to represent spatial phenomena more effectively(Aurambout et al., 2008). Recent technological development suchas virtual globes have supported the field of geographical visuali-sation to move beyond the static flat map and provide a platformto more actively engage the end users of spatial information (Mikicet al., 2004; Tress and Tress, 2003; Wissen et al., 2008).

“Geographical visualisation focuses on the application of scien-tific communication theory to mapping artefacts” (Cartwright et al.,2004, p.28) and extends to include multi-media and virtual real-ity (virtual landscape) representations (Câmara and Raper, 1999).Landscape visualisation can be considered a subset of the broaderfield of geographical visualisation which is used to communicate

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

existing conditions and alternative landscape scenarios, past andpresent, for both educative and consultative purposes (Priestnalland Hampson, 2008). Landscape visualisation can bring large datasets to life and enable people to become part of an interactivedecision-making process (Stock et al., 2008) and has an impor-

ghts reserved.

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

LAND-1941; No. of Pages 11

2 C.J. Pettit et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

F and mc nal usA

tbD1

gaLctbogdesdqtia

cv(Geu(vtt(tuht

ig. 1. Landscape visualisation—a window to environmental planning informationurrent and future state of landscapes. Landscape visualisation can also assist interdapted from Pettit et al., 2006.

ant role as a communication and engagement medium within theroader context of participatory decision making (Wu et al., 2010;rummond and French, 2008; Lange and Hehl-Lange, 2005; Harris,989).

Numerous studies have used landscape visualisation to geo-raphically depict urban and regional landscapes; past, present,nd future (e.g. Bishop and Lange, 2005; Cartwright et al., 2004;ovett, 2005; Pettit et al., 2006). However, there remain manyhallenges in applying landscape visualisation techniques for effec-ively communicating processes and changes in both natural anduilt landscapes. Cartwright et al. (2005) introduced the conceptf “geographical dirtiness” and discussed in the context of urbaneographical visualisation how user perceptions can be influencedepending on what is and isn’t included in a virtual scene; forxample, the impact of graffiti on building walls. Whether visuali-ation developers are considering the implications of “geographicalirtiness” or the broader ethical issues (Sheppard, 2001), it isuite simple to distort the truth in communicating both traditionalwo-dimensional (2D) maps and more interactive landscape visual-sations. One must maintain a healthy scepticism when consideringny manipulated models of reality (Monmonier, 1996).

Significant research has been undertaken in exploring the appli-ation and development of a range of tools and techniques forisualising landscapes in the context of environmental planningAppleton and Lovett, 2005; Bryan, 2003; Dockerty et al., 2005;hadirian and Bishop, 2007; Pettit, 2006; Stock et al., 2007). How-ver, there is a much more limited body of work dealing with endser evaluation of landscape visualisations. Sheppard and Cizek2009) have put forth a number of criteria for evaluating landscapeisualisations under the categories of: (i) accuracy, (ii) representa-iveness, (iii) visual clarity, (iv) interest, (v) legitimacy, (vi) accesso visual information, and (vii) framing and presentation. Sheppard

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

2005) has presented a theoretical spectrum of human responseso visual information on climate change ranging from improvednderstanding to behavioural change. Bishop and Karadaglis (2001)ave evaluated the perceptions of end users from the perspec-ive of choices of movements within a virtual world. Evaluation of

odels for external users to inform investment and policy decisions regarding theers in sharing and refining information and models.

landscape visualisations within an immersive workshop environ-ment has been undertaken to some degree by Salter et al. (2009)and Stock et al. (2007). These evaluations were conducted usinglandscape visualisations within a controlled workshop environ-ment. Other research has compared and contrasted “expert” and“lay” judgements of environmental values and scenario preferenceswithin a spatial framework to inform targeted delivery of envi-ronmental management programs (Lange and Hehl-Lange, 2010;Brown et al., 2004; Sheppard and Meitner, 2004). However, littlehas been done in formally evaluating the strengths and weaknessesof landscape visualisations in communicating modelled landscapefutures to multiple end users, despite the product developmentand innovation literature urging researchers to consider users fromother markets which face similar problems but in different forms(see Bogers et al., 2010 for a detailed review). This gap is also appar-ent within the related field of public participation GeographicalInformation Systems (GIS) where few researchers have exploredmeasures of effectiveness from a communications and engagementperspective (Elwood, 2006; Sieber, 2006).

Two user groups which are of interest in this study are cur-rent users and future users (Fig. 1). In the broadest sense, currentusers include environmental managers and planners who have aresponsibility for making planning, investment and policy deci-sions regarding the current and future state of landscapes. Futureusers broadly include people who are studying how to use, manip-ulate and interpret landscape visualisations at vocation or tertiaryeducation levels. A number of researchers have used students astheir survey subjects (e.g. Hartig et al., 2003; Schultz et al., 2005).More recently, Tveit (2009) used student subjects to representfuture users of landscape visualisation products (termed futurelandscape professionals). They found that student preferences forlandscapes do not reflect the preferences of the wider public. We

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

believe undergraduate spatial information science students, a seg-ment of the future users market, is an important group to considerin this study given the educational focus of the landscape visualisa-tion tools, the proficiency of the group in using and interacting withlandscape visualisation products, and the high prospect that many

ING

L

Urban

os

assafssuapTmrvmdittsdmcmbp

2

2

etLsmtdoiTla

ctaMmplDe

satpelb

ARTICLEModel

AND-1941; No. of Pages 11

C.J. Pettit et al. / Landscape and

f the students sampled will be employed to design and administeruch tools in the future.

In this study, we take a case study approach engaging twoudiences (current users and future users) in an evaluation of land-cape visualisations for communicating environmental planning inouth-eastern Australia. We aim to better understand the strengthsnd weaknesses of visualisation for communication of landscapeutures scenarios to current users, including environmental agencytaff, as well as future users, including spatial information sciencetudents. We developed a suite of landscape visualisation prod-cts including movies, maps and downloadable digital earth filess part of a large multi-agency environmental planning researchroject named the Lower Murray Landscape Futures (LMLF) project.he landscape visualisation tools inform environmental manage-ent investment decisions in the 12 million hectare Lower Murray

egion, an area of high value for agriculture, biodiversity conser-ation, and land and water resource management. The evaluationethod consists of two phases: (i) semi-structured interviews con-

ucted with 12 current users who either use or have an interestn landscape visualisation products as part of their work withinhe study region, and (ii) website evaluation surveys administeredo 89 undergraduate spatial information science students, repre-enting future users. A series of strengths, weaknesses, and futureirections for more effective landscape visualisation product com-unication are identified by current users and future users. We

onclude by discussing future directions for the design and deploy-ent of landscape visualisation products, and how they can be

etter used to support stakeholder engagement in environmentallanning.

. Methodology

.1. Landscape modelling

Investment in environmental management in Australia is gov-rned by a regional model at the core of which are regional planshat specify targets for enhancing environmental sustainability. TheMLF project aimed to assess the environmental, economic, andocial impacts of a suite of spatially explicit environmental manage-ent actions for achieving regional natural resource management

argets under current and future scenarios. The outputs wereesigned to inform regional decision makers, communities andther stakeholders of the costs, benefits, and trade-offs of achiev-ng regional targets (Bryan et al., 2011; Crossman and Bryan, 2009).he LMLF project was a four-year, multi-disciplinary research col-aboration between research providers and Commonwealth, statend regional agencies.

The Lower Murray region is under the jurisdiction of threeommunity-based regional environmental management agencies:he South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resource Man-gement Board (SAMDB NRM Board), the Mallee Catchmentanagement Authority (Mallee CMA), and the Wimmera Catch-ent Management Authority (Wimmera CMA). Whilst the LMLF

roject had a dual focus on both the River Murray corridor and dry-and terrestrial systems, in this study we concentrate on the latter.ryland land use in the study area is dominated by remnant naturalcosystems and mixed cereal cropping/sheep farming (Fig. 2).

As a basis for the LMLF study, a comprehensive landscape-cale spatial model was used to determine the likely impacts ofdopting environmental management actions including: vegeta-

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

ion management, ecological restoration, conservation farming,lanting deep-rooted perennials, biomass plantings, and biofu-ls production to achieve regional targets. Five scenarios wereargely defined by climate change and market prices for carbon,iomass, and biofuels. These scenarios were: baseline (historical

PRESSPlanning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 3

average), mild warming/drying, moderate warming/drying, severewarming/drying, and mild warming/wetting. In addition, six policyoptions which dictate the spatial arrangement of environmen-tal management actions were also assessed. These policy optionswere: Go Anywhere, Cheapest, Best for Biodiversity, Best for NRM,Most Cost-Effective, and Sustainability Ideal. For each landscapefuture (policy option and scenario combination), environmentalmanagement actions were optimally located in the landscape sothat the regional targets are achieved according to the objectivesset under the policy option (Bryan et al., 2011). LMLF model outputsincluded GIS generated map layers describing the spatial distribu-tion of environmental management actions under each alternativelandscape future, and performance measures across a range of envi-ronmental, economic, and social indicators.

The modelled landscape futures varied substantially. Generally,the amount of land use change increased with increasing warm-ing and drying associated with the scenarios. Bioenergy options aremore widespread under milder warming and drying and tree-basedcrops dominating under warmer drier scenarios. The spatial loca-tion of land use alternatives also changed substantially betweenspatial policy options. The landscape visualisations for each sce-nario were developed to enable end users to interactively view andexplore the resultant environmental planning models.

2.2. Visualisation methods

In the early stages of the LMLF project, a number of alternativetechniques for visualising present and future landscape scenariosdeveloped for the Lower Murray region were considered. Feed-back from participants of the LMLF regional workshops and steeringgroup meetings and from within the project team resulted in a deci-sion to deploy a virtual globe solution with supporting fly-throughsand maps available through a dedicated online site (Pettit, 2006).

Virtual globes are interactive visualisation products that enableusers to zoom in from a global scale into a country, a state, aregion, and down to a place of interest. Virtual globes provide avirtual earth graphic user interface (GUI) where a mouse is usedto navigate via a ‘point and click’ paradigm. The user-friendlinessof accessing spatial information and navigating through a virtuallandscape is considered to be one of the major strengths of virtualglobes, as it makes environmental planning models more accessi-ble to environmental planners (Sheppard and Cizek, 2009). Virtualglobes have been used to visualise and communicate a range ofenvironmental planning applications from strategic land use plan-ning options in The Netherlands (Rodríguez Lloret et al., 2008) tomapping disasters zones in New Orleans in the wake of HurricaneKatrina (Nourbakhsh et al., 2006).

We selected Google Earth as the virtual globe product for visu-alising alternative landscape futures for the Lower Murray regionfor several reasons. These include: (i) its viewer platform is freelyavailable and distributed online, (ii) its native file format, KeyholeMarkup Language (KML), is an open specification and is compli-ant with Extensible Markup Language (XML), and (iii) it supportsonline collaboration (Web 2.0 compliant). With its vast coverage ofsatellite imagery, terrain and geographical features, Google Earthcan provide useful spatial context for the environmental planningmodels.

Each of the 30 alternative landscape futures (five scenarios withsix policy options) for the Lower Murray region were produced asGoogle Earth keyhole mark-up language compressed (KMZ) filescomprising both spatial data and legend (Fig. 3). To produce the

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

Google Earth visualisation products, spatial models of landscapefutures were first created as ESRI grid raster layers. ESRI’s ArcMapGIS was used to set the projection, datum and symbology for thesefiles. Next, the KMLer ArcMap exporter tool was used to export eachlayer in GeoTIFF format. The Super Overlay tool was used to tile the

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

LAND-1941; No. of Pages 11

4 C.J. Pettit et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

F lture ib

iclwFe(

amirrsmwmdsttb

ig. 2. Location map and land use in the Lower Murray study area. Dryland agricueing more common in the south and sheep in the north.

mage so it can be efficiently viewed in Google Earth. Legends werereated in ArcMap using the Arc2Earth extension; the exportedegend image was edited in Photoshop, saved as a Portable Net-

ork Graphics (PNG) file, and added to the KMZ file using Winzip.inally, the KMZ code was customised to reference the created leg-nd image. KMZ files are downloadable via the project’s websitehttp://www.landscapefutures.com.au).

A number of complementary landscape futures visualisationnd communication products were presented in a range of for-ats in order to engage environmental agency staff, Australian and

nternational academics, and private consultants involved in envi-onmental planning and management. Formats included technicaleports, executive summaries, glossy brochures (of 2, 6 or 16 pages),eminars and PowerPoint presentations (several of which wereade available via podcast), and scientific papers. The LMLF projectebsite contains a Google Map locality map, narrated fly-throughovies generated using Google Earth and Camtasia Studio, and the

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

ownloadable Google Earth KMZ files for each of the modelled land-cape scenarios. The visualisation outputs were also accessible inhe ‘publications’ section of the website. In addition, members ofhe project team conducted two workshops with current users inoth the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin and Mallee regions,

ncludes mixed farming of cereal cropping and sheep grazing rotation with cereals

specifically to present and discuss visualisation product results. Thenext section of our paper presents an end user evaluation of thelandscape futures visualisation products.

2.3. Evaluation methods

Both semi-structured interviews and a web-based survey wereused to evaluate the landscape futures visualisation products.Semi-structured interviews were conducted with current usersin order to encourage qualitative two-way communication aboutthe strengths and weaknesses of landscape visualisation prod-ucts and future directions for environmental planning visualisationand communication. A web-based survey was administered toundergraduate spatial information science students representingmembers of future users likely to use and explore the site. We chosean online survey considering students were already positioned infront of a computer which had access to the Internet. Further, data

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

were stored automatically in a back-end MySQL database elimi-nating the need for separate data entry. Students were selectedfor their ability to use Web 2.0 and GIS tools, appreciation ofenvironmental planning concepts, and a general awareness of envi-ronmental planning issues in Australia. The core questions which

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

LAND-1941; No. of Pages 11

C.J. Pettit et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 5

ndscap

isap

2

sbcvrprrDNcwrsie1a

ie

••

•

Fig. 3. Example of the interactive visualisation of spatially explicit la

nformed both the interview and survey design were: what are thetrengths and weaknesses of the LMLF visualisation products ascommunication tool? How could these landscape visualisation

roducts be improved?

.3.1. Current usersA snowball sampling procedure (Babbie, 2007) was used to

elect semi-structured interview participants. We asked mem-ers of the LMLF project steering committee to identify up to fiveurrent users who had either referred to or used the landscapeisualisation products as part of their work. These staff in turnecommended colleagues who had either referred to or used theroducts. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 cur-ent users between March and July 2009. Interview participantsepresented the project partner organisations: South Australianepartment of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, SAMDBRM Board, Mallee CMA, and University of Adelaide. One of thehallenges of this study was to identify environmental agency staffho had both a knowledge of and interest in the Lower Mur-

ay Landscape Futures visualisation products. Whilst the snowballampling procedure revealed approximately 40 staff who had annterest in the products, only 12 felt they had sufficient knowl-dge of them to comment during semi-structured interviews. These2 participants all had a basic knowledge of GIS software and hadccess to a computer and Internet at their place of work.

Each interview lasted approximately 1 h. For consistency, thenterviewer followed a script containing questions designed tolicit information about:

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

the nature of the work;the participant’s knowledge of the LMLF project and the land-scape visualisation products;the landscape visualisation product’s strengths, weaknesses andbarriers to use, and

e futures in Google Earth using data generated for the LMLF project.

• ways of improving the communication effectiveness of landscapevisualisation products.

The interview questions were piloted with two key informantsfrom the SAMDB NRM Board. Each interview was recorded andtranscribed verbatim. Interview transcriptions were then importedinto NVivo8 qualitative text analysis software. NVivo8 was used toidentify, analyse, and report patterns (themes) within the inter-view data in accordance with thematic analysis procedures (Braunand Clarke, 2006), a widely applied qualitative analytic methodwithin psychology. The goal of thematic analysis is to search forthemes that emerge as being important to the description of thephenomenon, rather than to represent all possible variations ofthat concept or to quantify relationships between themes. Work-ing directly from the raw information rather than a theory enhancesappreciation of the easily evident and difficult to discern aspects ofthe information. We present the key themes and sub-themes (titledexplanations) in a series of tables. Each bullet point relates to oneexplanation provided by current users or future users.

The process involved six inductive phases: (i) becoming famil-iar with the content by reading the transcript and noting downinitial ideas; (ii) generating initial categories of strengths, weak-nesses, and future directions; (iii) searching for themes by selectingtext from the interview transcripts and assigning it to the cate-gories; (iv) reviewing if the themes relate to the categories andthe entire dataset; (v) defining and refining the specifics of eachtheme, and generating clear explanations for each theme basedon the dataset; and (vi) final analysis where the identified themesare related back to the research aim. Once interview content wascoded into themes, we then calculated the number of times each

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

theme was referred to by project participants. Finally, these fre-quencies were converted into rankings which reflect their level ofimportance to project participants. We acknowledge frequency ofsub-theme identification is only one measure of importance. Timeof discussion is another measure; however, this it is very difficult to

ING

L

6 Urban

ctmsqft

2

sstvspctpGaGSlsw(gcnasvAulstpMt

sao

3

3

3brbvomtmstrrr

ARTICLEModel

AND-1941; No. of Pages 11

C.J. Pettit et al. / Landscape and

ontrol for given the different ways in which individuals respondo a question. For example, we found that some respondents com-

enced answering the question and then drifted into unrelatedubject matter, whereas other respondents directly answered theuestion at hand in a much shorter time-span. To control for con-ounding effects, we decided to focus on frequency of response ashe sole measure of relative importance.

.3.2. Future usersUniversity of South Australia undergraduate spatial information

cience students (in their first and third year) were considered aegment of future users. A purposeful sampling technique was usedo select students who had experience with the use of landscapeisualisation products. Specifically, we used maximal variationampling which entails selecting individuals who hold differenterspectives on the phenomenon being studied based on a specificriterion (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). The criterion for selec-ion in this case was the level of university training, with similarroportions of students selected from first and third year universityIS classes. Five website evaluation tutorials were conducted withtotal of 89 first and third year students during their scheduledIS tutorial. For consistency, one tutor conducted the five tutorials.tudents were provided a 10 min overview of the LMLF project andandscape visualisation products prior to completion of the onlineurvey. The website evaluation survey consisted of four parts: (i)ebsite familiarity, (ii) landscape visualisation product usefulness,

iii) satisfaction with landscape visualisation products and sug-estions for improvement, and (iv) participant socio-demographicharacteristics (age, gender, etc.). The survey comprised of bothumerical rating to measure the usefulness of the landscape visu-lisation products, as well as open-response questions which askedtudents to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the landscapeisualisation products and ways in which they could be improved.fter the tutor presented one of the landscape visualisation prod-cts as an example, students were asked to view the remaining

andscape visualisation products for 10 min prior to completing theurvey. Participants were instructed they had 20 min to completehe survey after the 10-min viewing time. Hence, the evaluationeriod lasted 40 min in total. All survey responses were stored in ay SQL database to provide an automated and consistent approach

o analysing the student responses.Quantitative analysis of the numerical rating scales revealed few

ignificant differences across gender, knowledge of landscape visu-lisation products and age (p > 0.05). We therefore chose to focusur study on a thematic analysis of the open response questions.

. Results

.1. Current users

Seven of the 12 respondents were male between the ages of0 and 50 years. Four participants were female project officersetween the ages of 30 and 50 years and one participant was a maleesearch program leader over the age of 50 years. All respondentselieved they had a fair to excellent ability to interpret landscapeisualisation products and had received tertiary training in a varietyf natural resource management fields including park manage-ent, hydrology, and ecology, most of which had a GIS component

o them. Eight respondents were project officers in the areas ofonitoring, reporting and evaluation, biodiversity and threatened

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

pecies management, irrigated land and water management, spa-ial information/monitoring, and soil management. Three of theespondents were program leaders, and one respondent was aesearch business manager. Current users provided more in-depthesponses than future users. For this reason, when analysing the

PRESSPlanning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

strengths and weaknesses, more themes were presented in thecurrent user section than the future user section.

3.1.1. Strengths and weaknessesAccessibility, planning and investment, and learning concepts

were the strengths of the landscape visualisation products mostfrequently mentioned by interviewees (Table 1). Current users val-ued the online accessibility of the landscape visualisation productsand graphical interface. One respondent mentioned: “It’s good thatthey’re so easy to put into something like Google Earth. It’s accessi-ble by everyone, free to download, so I think it makes it more widelyavailable to more people to look at.” Respondents also believedthat the graphical interface made the environmental investmentpriorities easier to understand than in-text descriptions: “I guessit’s ‘the picture tells a thousand words’ . . . I just think it saysmore—it says a lot.” Current users appreciated the planning andinvestment prioritisation potential of the landscape visualisationproducts. Participants mentioned that the landscape visualisationproducts provide a justification for spending money in particu-lar places, facilitate reflection on past activities and explorationof future alternatives, and support policy decisions presented tothe Minister. Other respondents noted that they provide a strategicand evidence-based approach to understanding how future land-scapes may look based upon different management actions, andcommodity and climate change scenarios.

The most frequently expressed weaknesses and barriers relatedto the communication and presentation of landscape visualisationproducts (Table 1). Whilst most current users had seen a summaryPowerPoint presentation of the landscape visualisation products,they were concerned about the lack of explanation about modelassumptions, limitations, the methods used for map interpretation,and the lack of promotion of the landscape visualisation productsto different current users. Concerns were also raised by currentusers about the nature of stakeholder engagement, the capacityto interpret and use the landscape visualisation products, and thescale and framing of models (Table 1).

3.1.2. Future directionsCurrent users encouraged scientists to target their messages to a

spectrum of audiences (Table 2). Landscape visualisation productsof different levels of complexity could be developed in accordancewith the user group. Other respondents suggested the use of morecreative communication materials, including the use of gimmicks(pens, coffee mugs, magnets displaying pictures of the landscapevisualisation products) to alert or remind current users about theexistence of landscape visualisation products, or the developmentof simulation games to captivate interest. Respondents mentionedthat landscape visualisation products also need to be easily accessi-ble. Accessibility may be improved by providing different formatsof the same output, including traditional GIS file formats such asESRI Grid and shapefiles.

Some current users appreciated the time and effort devotedby individual scientists in communicating results to them face-to-face and suggesting how the results could inform their planning.These respondents were enthusiastic about continuing to workwith the research team on future landscape visualisation productdevelopment and are currently part of a larger network of peopleinterested in visualisation. Others encouraged more resources to bedevoted to stakeholder engagement programs delivered alongsidethe landscape visualisation science. For example, the possibilityof embedding current users in research teams to enable cross-

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

fertilisation of ideas and follow-up on project presentations. Therewas a general view that stakeholder engagement is not the soleresponsibility of the researcher. Greater support for skilled scien-tists and knowledge brokers who are able to translate complexlandscape visualisation product findings into simple messages and

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

LAND-1941; No. of Pages 11

C.J. Pettit et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 7

Table 1Strengths and weaknesses of the landscape futures visualisation products as identified by current users.

Theme Explanation Rank

StrengthsAccess to visual information • Free and easy accessibility of tools and information through a public domain once Google Earth is

installed1

• Presents information in a visual way which is easier to understand than a PowerPoint presentation on agiven topic

Planning and investment • Enables reflection on past activities and exploration of future alternatives 2• Supports decision making especially with respect to guiding priority investment areas/targetinginvestment• Encourages a strategic investment approach by environmental planners

Learning tool • It makes respondents consider environmental attributes and policies that they have not considered inthe past

3

• Assists in understanding the function of wider adjacent landscapes and the needs of the collective ratherthan just the individual

Policy development andadjustment

• Supports comparison of policy options 4• Supports policy decisions presented to the Minister• Provides evidence for existing policies

Legitimacy • Scientists were seen to have credible sources of knowledge 5• Landscape visualisations were seen to be based on robust science

WeaknessesCommunication and presentation • Explanation of landscape visualisation product assumptions, limitations and methods for map

interpretation, and promotion of project outputs could have been improved1

• The aim and target audience for the landscape visualisation products was not clearly identified,including their needs and interests. The modelled results were complex—limited capacity to customisepriority layers according to user needs (e.g. turn layers on and off)

Stakeholder engagement • Although a number of communication tools were developed, respondents felt there was limitedopportunity for current user involvement in landscape visualisation product planning, development andexecution

2

• Follow-up on project presentations neededCapacity to interpret and use • Insufficient understanding of how to use/exploit the landscape visualisation products 3

ould hdels tale da

pwptatr

3

u

TF

• Methodology behind the results cScale and framing • Applicability of regional-scale mo

• Concerns about using regional-sc

ractical outcomes is needed. A variety of other future directionsere provided in relation to the themes of communications andresentation, stakeholder engagement, scale and framing, alterna-ive scenario exploration, access to visual information and visualnalytics functionality. Table 2 provides explanations beside eachheme. These explanations were derived from the intervieweeesponses.

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

.2. Future users

The majority of the 89 students surveyed, representing futuresers, were male (66.3%), less than 30 years of age (84.3%), had

able 2uture directions for landscape visualisation techniques and communication as identified

Theme Explanation

Communication and presentation • Target science messages to a spectrum ofthe use of gimmicks and simulation games• Communicate underlying assumptions of• Develop and support landscape visualisatdifferent user groups

Stakeholder engagement • Embed current users in visualisation scie• Ensure there is a champion (champions)• Ensure adequate training and support whmaterials, user guides and online help to as

Scale and framing • Refine landscape visualisation products tsocio-demographics• Clearer definitions on visualisation produ

Alternative scenario exploration • Consider “packages of options” for currenpackage of priorities based upon different p• Consider the impact of external pressures

Access to visual information • Make data more accessible to different us• Consider supporting a number of alternat

Visual analytics functionality • Provide a flexible interface which enables• Create tiled map viewer windows to enab• Consider technologies for clicking on andof colours presented on the screen to symb

ave been presented more clearlyo farm-scale environmental decisions 4ta at a finer scale

found out about the products through the tutorial session (89.4%),and were first time users of the landscape visualisation products(81.4%). Approximately half the students were planning to majorin spatial information sciences and the remainder were planning tomajor in regional and urban planning or environmental manage-ment and hence considered indicative of future users.

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

3.2.1. Strengths and weaknessesAlthough the majority of student respondents had only accessed

the LMLF project website once, most had a positive experienceand were somewhat likely to return. Overall, students appreciatedthe website functionality, particularly the way in which infor-

by current users.

Rank

audiences and invest in marketing and public relations, including 1

datasetsion products which are of different levels of complexity for

nce teams 2within the organisation to promote adoptionich could include both people (knowledge brokers) and supportingsist in landscape visualisation product up-skilling

o consider property scale futures and contextual factors such as 3

cts about the scale at which they can appropriately be usedt users confronted by landscape change, rather than providing aolicies

4

such as residential development on landscape futureer groups 5ive map views and file typescustom driven ‘what if?’ scenarios to be explored 6le multi-scenario comparisonsoff individual management actions in order to reduce the numberolise management actions

ARTICLE IN PRESSG Model

LAND-1941; No. of Pages 11

8 C.J. Pettit et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

Table 3Strengths and weaknesses of the landscape futures visualisation products as identified by future users.

Theme Explanation Rank

StrengthsLearning tool • The information is very well set-out 1

• Despite the access constraints, Google Earth is a good medium for learning about and communicatinglandscape futures

Access to visual information • Publications are easy to access and download 2• Landscape visualisation products are easy to access on the website

Planning and investment • Areas for future management can be identified and prioritised based on the colour codes 3• Maps provide a way for regional managers to prioritise investment

Legitimacy • The products are perceived to be based on sound science 4WeaknessesVisual clarity • Landscape visualisation product text was too small, particularly the map legends; boundaries of the different

themes are blurred at large scales1

• Landscape visualisation products were very detailed and the multiple colours made them confusing to read,e.g. some of the colour combinations made it hard to pinpoint certain locations• The video (fly-through) was pixelated and difficult to follow

Communication and presentation • Too much technical jargon presented on the home page for the wider community—no information presentedon how the products could be applied to conservation decisions

2

lisatio

in lan

malttdtomtd

3

ipratas

e

TF

• The purpose of the landscape visuaon the home page• It was difficult to examine changes

ation was presented on the screen, the amount of informationvailable on the publications page, and the potential use of theandscape visualisation products as a planning and managementool (Table 3). Weaknesses focused on visual clarity, communica-ion, and presentation elements; particularly the size of text, theetail in the colour maps, the pixelation of the landscape visualisa-ion products, lack of communication about the intended audiencef the visualisation products, and the amount of technical infor-ation on the home page. Some students also found it difficult

o interpret the maps. They had difficulty understanding what theifferent priorities meant and how the priorities were generated.

.2.2. Future directionsFuture users recommended improvements to the visual clar-

ty, communication, and legitimacy of the landscape visualisationroducts (Table 4). The colours used to represent different naturalesource management priorities need to be revised and clear guid-nce is needed to apply the various colours shown. It was proposed

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

hat additional interfaces could be used to interpret the maps, suchs blogs, updated podcasts, summary publications specific to thecenarios, and a general user guide.

Some students suggested the possibility of superimposing lay-rs or dissolving layers to assist priority and scenario comparisons.

able 4uture directions for landscape visualisation techniques and communication as identified

Theme Explanation

Visual clarity • Colours chosen in landscape visualisation produareas of impact when most are different shades o• Better quality Google Earth layers, including im• Disperse the information (e.g. map legend) in a

Communication and presentation • Clear guidance as to how to apply the various clocate than the publications• A guide to using the landscape visualisation pro• Clearly define the purpose of the landscape visu• Update podcasts and provide more summary p

Visual analytics functionality • Possibility for viewer to select options to consid• Consider additional ‘fly-through’ options (e.g. tmild to severe climate change scenarios)• Superimpose or dissolve the scenario layers intnoticed on the screen

Legitimacy • Hotlink landscape visualisation products to repwhich underpins the maps• Need for cleaning of some of the small raster cepriorities) over townships

n products and the benefits for the intended audience are unclear

d management priorities based on the different scenarios

Others suggested the potential for a parameter or user-drivenvisualisation environment whereby the current user can view alter-native landscape futures based upon the specified parameters. Toreduce the number of colours and complexity presented on thescreen, respondents noted that it may be possible to generate func-tions which enable layers to be toggled ‘on’ and ‘off’ within theweb-enabled environment. Layering may enable better comparisonof different policy options.

4. Discussion

4.1. Visualisation for communicating environmental planning

The aim of this study was to understand the strengths andweaknesses of landscape visualisation for communicating environ-mental planning from the perspectives of two audiences: currentusers and future users. The results reveal a number of simi-larities between the audiences. Both audiences appreciated that

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

the landscape futures visualisation products could be used as anenvironmental planning and investment tool in terms of guidingpriority investment and encouraging a more strategic rather thanreactive approach to environmental planning. They also recognisedthat the visualisation tools had an important role in raising knowl-

by future users.

Rank

cts to be ‘more blended’ or balanced, e.g. it is hard to distinguishf purple

1

proved resolution to ensure the themes are legible at large scalesmore legible mannerolours shown—perhaps some explanatory notes that are easier to 2

ducts is neededalisation products on the home page, including aims and objectives

ublications specific to the scenarios and a general user guideer in the scenario (i.e. parameter based) 3

he possibility for the fly-throughs to sequentially move through the

o each other so that changes in landscape futures can be easily

ort information so the user can explore and interrogate the science 4

lls, e.g. review why there are coloured cells (land management

ING

L

Urban

ecoi

ccp(iEvuptuTtfmuofte

ufabaatismstav

ltfdtdemicueitlteebtaeeno

ARTICLEModel

AND-1941; No. of Pages 11

C.J. Pettit et al. / Landscape and

dge and awareness of future landscape scenarios. Participantsommented that the visualisation products were well organisedn the website and easy to access once Google Earth had beennstalled.

However, responses from both the current user and future userommunities concur with the view that one interface is insuffi-ient for multiple user groups. Although the landscape visualisationroducts developed for the LMLF project do this to some degreee.g. they are voice narrated fly-through movies, embedded visual-sations within reports and facts sheets, and downloadable Googlearth files), responses indicate there is a need to better targetisualisation products to different markets, and in this case, endser types. Researchers need to consider how the graphical dis-lay of visualisation products needs to be changed for differentarget audiences, and the potential for customising products basedpon different learning styles, skill sets, interests, and user needs.his could possibly be achieved through a combination of usabilityesting (Nielsen, 1994) or developing multiple metaphorical inter-aces to information (Cartwright, 1999). The level of complexity of

odelled outputs is another important aspect of visualisation prod-ct communication. Both current users and future users soughtptions for simplifying the visualisation product communication,rom clicking individual attributes within layers on and off througho the development of printing and viewing functions so that differ-nt scenarios and policy options can be compared and contrasted.

Interestingly, when we cross-checked our evaluation resultssing the evaluation criteria of Sheppard and Cizek (2009), weound a number of our themes align including: accuracy, legitimacy,ccess to information, framing, and presentation. In our approachoth current users and future users perceive scale and framing to beweakness of the approach. When viewing scenarios of the futurecross vast tracts of land, how can different users identify and relateo the findings presented? Another common theme which emergeds the perceived strength of visualisation as a learning tool. Visuali-ation should not be ‘an end in itself’ rather it can empower decisionakers and communities to collaboratively explore future land-

cape scenarios. Feedback from the environmental modellers onhe project also provided insight that the development of the visu-lisation products presented a useful tool to assist in the visualalidation and calibrations of the landscape future scenarios.

Stakeholder engagement programs may also need to be tai-ored to different user groups. Future user comments focussed onhe visual clarity of the products, whereas current user commentsocussed on the nature and extent of stakeholder engagement. Thisifference may be a reflection of the level of computer literacy ofhe two groups and the importance placed on the broader humanimension of landscape visualisation science. Students were gen-rally proficient users of online tools and websites and expressedost interest in the functionality of visualisation products, includ-

ng the presentation of the graphical design interface, whereasurrent users often had difficulty navigating the visualisation prod-cts and paid more attention to how multiple stakeholders werengaged in product design and application. It may be sufficient tonform future users about available landscape visualisation toolshrough a well publicised and well formatted website, but deeperevels of engagement are needed for current users discussed in Sec-ion 4.2. We also recognise there is an onus on the current user tongage with environmental modellers and visualisation develop-rs. They need to be interested in innovation, and be prepared toe skilled in the interpretation of environmental planning informa-ion. Whilst significant efforts were made to inform current users

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

bout the visualisation products in the LMLF project (e.g. the deliv-ry of workshops, presentations and meetings), the results of thisvaluation suggest that many of the insights presented either wereot accepted or understood by current users. Lack of acceptanceccurred when current users own view of management conflicted

PRESSPlanning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 9

with the modelled priorities presented in the landscape visual-isations. Lack of understanding can be mainly attributed to thevisual clarity of the graphical interface and inability to interpretthe meanings of visualisation products at a suitable scale to informmanagement decisions.

4.2. Embedding visualisation into the environmentaldecision-making process

Our findings stress the importance of not only improving thequality of the landscape visualisation products, but also the pro-cess of engaging multiple stakeholders in visualisation productdevelopment. From experience, engagement will be considereda secondary exercise unless a dedicated ‘communications andstakeholder engagement’ person is embedded in large environ-mental modelling and visualisation type projects. This person mustbe responsible for developing partnerships between researchers,current users and the wider community, and assist researcherstranslate complex modelled findings into simple applied messages.Embedding current users in the landscape visualisation develop-ment team or vice versa may be another way of creating ownershipfor the visualisation products and inspiring their application andinstitutional adoption.

A variety of engagement methods presented in the landscapeplanning and environmental management literatures can assist acommunications and engagement person embed visualisation intothe environmental decision-making process. Stakeholder analysiscan reveal a subset of interests and influences within current userand future user groups who require different forms and frequen-cies of engagement (Reed et al., 2009). For example, current usersdealing with landholders at the property scale may have very dif-ferent interests and needs to current users who are making policydecisions at the regional scale. After identifying the stakehold-ers, the landscape visualisation developers would benefit from (i)the use of knowledge integration methods that identify differentways of knowing about the environmental management problem(Raymond et al., 2010), (ii) social learning methods whereby indi-viduals from multiple knowledge bases are brought together toshare ideas and learn from one another (Bull et al., 2008), and (iii)co-management methods which enable joint decision-making bythe state and multiple user groups (Armitage et al., 2009). Socialnetwork analysis is another method available for identifying differ-ent stakeholders and for understanding how their knowledge andinterests influence project design and administration (for exam-ple, Prell et al., 2009; Kossinets and Watts, 2006). Some of thesemethods are already embedded in participatory decision makingprocesses which utilise landscape visualisation (Paar et al., 2008;Sheppard and Cizek, 2009; Sieber, 2006); however, as this evalua-tion shows, there is scope for improvement.

4.3. Limitations

It is important to recognise the limitations of our approach bothfrom a visualisation and evaluation perspective.

4.3.1. Landscape visualisation approachIn generating the virtual globe visualisation products our

approach did not extend to property scale land parcel due tothe accuracy of the scenario modelling undertaken. Hence, theembedding of 3D objects representing vegetation, land use or builtinfrastructure into the landscape using object libraries (Pettit et al.,

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

2009) or tiling approaches (Rodríguez Lloret et al., 2008) were notappropriate for this study. We focused on developing landscapevisualisation draped surfaces which represented the modelled landuse change scenarios. However, future research would benefitin evaluating the value of more photo-realistic land parcel scale

ING

L

1 Urban

vmAi

4

ciaceautnamwetatsoav

5

ottpewotsbacaroeatpuactgt

A

mVald

ARTICLEModel

AND-1941; No. of Pages 11

0 C.J. Pettit et al. / Landscape and

irtual globe interactive environments from a planner and com-unity perspective. This research should build upon findings fromppleton and Lovett (2003) and Lange (2001) when evaluating the

ncreased benefit of realism for decision making.

.3.2. EvaluationThe evaluation was exploratory and used an inductive process to

onsider the multiple strengths, weaknesses and future directionsn communicating landscape visualisation products to differentudiences. Results are based on semi-structured interviews with 12urrent users whose views may not be representative of the widernvironmental planning community. It was challenging to obtainsample of 12 respondents to be interviewed as part of this eval-ation. Most current users had limited knowledge or awareness ofhe LMLF visualisation products, reinforcing some of the commu-ications and engagement challenges presented in this paper. Welso recognise that spatial information science students are a seg-ent of future users. Furthermore, the 89 undergraduate studentsere purposefully sampled based upon the criterion of knowl-

dge of spatial information systems and may not fully representhe views of this community. Future research may benefit fromdministering a web-based survey to a random and representa-ive sample of future users. However, the challenge, as faced in thistudy, was sampling future users who have sufficient knowledgef and interest in visualisation products. Sending out a filter surveysking about their level of knowledge of and interest in landscapeisualisation products may overcome this hurdle.

. Conclusions

Visualisation is a communication medium most people utilisen a daily basis. Landscape visualisation techniques have the poten-ial to enhance communication with decision makers and stimulatehe willingness of the public and stakeholders to engage with aarticular issue (problem or opportunity). With the recent prolif-ration of online mapping technologies and virtual globes throughhat is known as the ‘wikification of GIS’ (Sui, 2007), the future

f mapping and landscape visualisation to support environmen-al planning decisions and broader stakeholder engagement wouldeem assured. However, there are still many challenges that need toe addressed. Results highlight that there are a number of strengthsnd weaknesses in the application of landscape visualisations forommunicating environmental planning models. Some of thesere technical, but from current user and future perspectives thereemains much more work to be done around the communicationf visualisation products to multiple audiences and the effectivengagement of multiple stakeholders in product development andpplication. Building the visualisation products without an effec-ive stakeholder engagement plan and the visual clarity of theroducts were key concerns expressed by current users and futuresers, respectively. We suggest that future landscape modellingnd visualisation projects need to consider investing in a dedicatedommunity engagement capability. This would assist in bridginghe gap between researcher and practitioner, particularly if theoal is to make landscape science more accessible and applicableo current and future users.

cknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the funding and support of the Com-

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

onwealth National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, theictorian Department of Primary Industries, and CSIRO’s Water forHealthy Country and Sustainable Agriculture Flagships. We would

ike to thank Barry Lincoln from Interpart and Associates for con-ucting the semi-structured interviews and assisting with survey

PRESSPlanning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx

design and administration. We also thank the environmental plan-ners from Victoria and South Australia, and the University of SouthAustralia students who participated in the evaluation.

References

Appleton, K., Lovett, A., 2003. GIS-based visualisation of rural landscapes: defining‘sufficient’ realism for environmental decision-making. Landscape Urban Plan.6, 117–131.

Appleton, K., Lovett, A., 2005. GIS-based visualization of development proposals:reactions from planning and related professionals. Comput. Environ. Urban 29,321–339.

Armitage, D., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-Hunt, I.J.,Diduck, A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinker-ton, E.W., Wollenberg, E.K., 2009. Adaptive co-management for social-ecologicalcomplexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (2), 95–102.

Aurambout, J.-P., Pettit, C.J., Lewis, H., 2008. In: Pettit, C., et al. (Eds.), VirtualGlobes—The Next GIS. Landscape Analysis and Visualisation: Spatial Models forNatural Resource Management and Planning. Springer, Berlin, pp. 509–532.

Babbie, E., 2007. The Practice of Social Research, 11th ed. Thomson Wadsworth,Belmont.

Bishop, I.D., Karadaglis, W.S., 2001. Experiential approaches to perception responsein virtual worlds. Landscape Urban Plan. 54 (1–4), 117–125.

Bishop, I.D., Lange, E., 2005. Visualization in Landscape and Environmental PlanningTechnology and Applications. Taylor and Francis, London.

Blaschke, T., 2005. The role of the spatial dimension within the framework of sustain-able landscapes and natural capital. Landscape Urban Plan. 75 (3–4), 198–226.

Bogers, M., Afuah, A., Bastian, B., 2010. Users as innovators: a review, critique, andfuture research directions. J. Manage. 36 (4), 857–875.

Braun, V, Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psych.3 (2), 77–101.

Bryan, B.A., 2003. Physical environmental modeling, visualization and query forsupporting environmental planning decisions. Landscape Urban Plan. 65 (4),237–259.

Bryan, B.A., Crossman, N.D., King, D., Meyer, W.S., 2011. Landscape futures analysis:assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policyoptions and scenarios. Environ. Modell. Softw. 26, 83–91.

Brown, G., Smith, C., Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., 2004. A comparison of perceptions ofbiological value with scientific assessment of biological importance. Appl. Geogr.24, 161–180.

Bull, R., Petts, J., Evans, J., 2008. Social learning from public engagement: Dreamingthe impossible? J. Environ. Plann. Man. 51 (5), 701–716.

Câmara, A.S., Raper, J., 1999. Spatial Multimedia and Virtual Reality. Taylor andFrancis, London.

Cartwright, W.E., 1999. Extending the map metaphor using web delivered multime-dia. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 13 (4), 335–353.

Cartwright, W., Miller, S., Pettit, C., 2004. Geographical visualization: past, presentand future development. J. Spat. Sci. 49 (1), 25–36.

Cartwright, W., Pettit, C., Nelson, A., Berry, M., 2005. Community collaborativedecision-making tools: determining the extent of ‘Geographical Dirtiness’ foreffective displays. Paper Presented at International Cartographic Conference. ACoruna, Spain.

Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed MethodsResearch. Sage Publications, UK.

Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A., 2009. Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restor-ing natural capital and enhancing landscape multi-functionality. Ecol. Econ. 68,654–668.

Dockerty, T., Lovett, A., Sunnenberg, G., Appleton, K., Parry, M., 2005. Visualisingthe potential impacts of climate change on rural landscapes. Comput. Environ.Urban 29, 297–320.

Drummond, W.J., French, S.P.F., 2008. The future of GIS in planning: convergingtechnologies and diverging interests. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 74 (2), 161.

Elwood, S., 2006. Critical issues in participatory GIS: deconstructions, reconstruc-tions, and new research directions. Trans. GIS 10 (5), 693–708.

Ghadirian, P., Bishop, I., 2007. Exploring environmental changes using integration ofaugmented reality and GIS. Paper Presented at Spatial Sciences Institute BiennialConference. Hobart, Tasmania.

Harris, B., 1989. Beyond geographic information systems: computers and the plan-ning professional. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 55 (1), 85–90.

Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jamner, L.D., Davis, D.S., Gärling, T., 2003. Tracking restorationin natural and urban field settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (2), 109–123.

Kossinets, G., Watts, D.J., 2006. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network.Science 311 (5757), 88–90.

Lange, E., 2001. The limits of realism: perceptions of virtual landscapes. LandscapeUrban Plan. 54, 163–182.

Lange, E., Hehl-Lange, S., 2010. Making visions visible for long-term landscape man-agement. Futures 42, 693–699.

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

Lange, E., Hehl-Lange, S., 2005. Combining a participatory planning approach with avirtual landscape model for the siting of wind turbines. J. Environ. Plann. Manage.48 (6), 833–852.

Lovett, A., 2005. Futurescapes. Computer Environ. Urban 29 (3), 249–253.Monmonier, M., 1996. How to Lie with Maps, 2nd ed. The University of Chicago

Press, London.

ING

L

Urban

M

N

NN

O

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

R

R

R

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

years experience in IT and 4 years experience as a spatial information officer. He

ARTICLEModel

AND-1941; No. of Pages 11

C.J. Pettit et al. / Landscape and

ikic, D., Skorin-Kapov, L., Dobrijevic, O., Schilhard, P., 2004. 3D visualization of thegeographical & organizational structure of the grid. Presented Paper at 12th IEEEMediterranean Electrotechnical Conference. Dubrovnik, Croatia.

aidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R.E., Lehner, B., et al., 2008.Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (28), 9495–9500.

ielsen, J., 1994. Usability Engineering. Academic Press Inc., Boston, USA.ourbakhsh, I., Sargent, R., Wright, A., Cramer, K., McClendon, B., Jones, M., 2006.

Mapping disaster zones. Nature 439 (7078), 787–788.sborne, P.E., Alonso, J.C., Bryant, R.G., 2001. Modelling landscape-scale habitat use

using GIS and remote sensing: a case study with great bustards. J. Appl. Ecol. 38(2), 458–471.

aar, P., Wieland, R., Johannes, S., 2008. Towards a planning support system forenvironmental management and agri-environmental measures—the Colorfieldsstudy. J. Environ. Manage. 89, 234–244.

ettit, C., 2006. Visualisation techniques for envisioning landscape futures. PaperPresented at ISPRS Working Group II/5—Communication and Visualization ofSpatial Data Conference. Vienna, Austria.

ettit, C., Cartwright, W., Berry, M., 2006. Geographical visualisation: a participa-tory planning support tool for imagining landscape futures. Appl. GIS 2 (3),22.1–22.17.

ettit, C.J., Sheth, F., Harvey, W., Cox, M., 2009. Building a 3D object library for visual-ising landscape futures. Paper Presented at the 18th World IMACS Congress andMODSIM09 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation Conference.Cairns, Australia.

hua, M.H., Minowa, M., 2005. A GIS-based multi-criteria decision making approachto forest conservation planning at a landscape scale: a case study in the KinabaluArea, Sabah, Malaysia. Landscape Urban Plan. 71 (2–4), 207–222.

rell, C., Hubacek, K., Reed, M., 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network anal-ysis in natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 22 (6), 501–518.

riestnall, G., Hampson, D., 2008. Landscape visualisation: science and art. In: Dodge,M., McDerby, M., Turner, M. (Eds.), Geographic Visualization: Concepts, Toolsand Applications. Wiley, UK, pp. 241–258.

aymond, C.M., Fazey, I., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Robinson, G.M., Evely, A.C., 2010.Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J.Environ. Manage. 91, 1766–1777.

eed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C.,Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., 2009. Who’s in and why? Stakeholder analysis as aprerequisite for sustainable natural resource management. J. Environ. Manage.90, 1933–1949.

odríguez Lloret, J., Omtzigt, N., Koomen, E., de Blois, F.S., 2008. 3D visualisationsin simulations of future land use: exploring the possibilities of new, standardvisualisation tools. Int. J. Digit. Earth 1 (1), 148–154.

alter, J.D., Campbell, C., Journeay, M., Sheppard, S.R.J., 2009. The digital workshop:exploring the use of interactive and immersive visualisation tools in participa-tory planning. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 2090–2101.

chultz, P.W., Gouveia, V., Cameron, L., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., Franek, M., 2005.Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservationbehaviour. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 36, 457–475.

heppard, S.R.J., 2001. Guide for crystal ball gazers: developing a code of ethics forlandscape visualization. Landscape Urban Plan. 54 (1–4), 183–199.

heppard, S.R.J., 2005. Landscape visualisation and climate change: the potential forinfluencing perceptions and behaviour. Environ. Sci. Policy. 8, 637–654.

heppard, S.R.J., Cizek, P., 2009. The ethics of Google Earth: crossing thresholds fromspatial data to landscape visualisation. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 2102–2117.

heppard, S.R.J., Meitner, M., 2004. Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation forsustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecol.Manage. 207, 171–187.

ieber, R., 2006. Public participation geographic information systems: a literaturereview and framework. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 96 (3), 491–507.

Please cite this article in press as: Pettit, C.J., et al., Identifying strengths anof future alternatives. Landscape Urban Plan. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.landurb

tock, C., Bishop, I., Green, R., 2007. Exploring landscape changes using an envi-sioning system in rural community workshops. Landscape Urban Plan. 79,229–239.

tock, C., Bishop, I.D., O’Connor, A.N., Chen, T., Pettit, C.J., Aurambout, J.-P., 2008.SIEVE: collaborative decision-making in an immersive online environment. Car-togr. Geogr. Inform. 35 (2), 133–144.

PRESSPlanning xxx (2011) xxx–xxx 11

Sui, D., 2007. The wikification of GIS and its consequences: or Angelina Jolie’s newtattoo and the future of GIS. Comput. Environ. Urban 32, 1–5.

Tress, B., Tress, G., 2003. Scenario visualisation for participatory environmentalplanning-a study from Denmark. Landscape Urban Plan. 64, 161–178.

Tveit, M.S., 2009. Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; acomparison between groups. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 2882–2888.

Wissen, U., Schroth, O., Lange, E., Schmid, W.A., 2008. Approaches to integratingindicators into 3D landscape visualisations and their benefits for participativeplanning situations. J. Environ. Manage. 89, 184–196.

Wu, H., Zhengwei, H., Gong, J., 2010. A virtual globe-based 3D visualization and inter-active framework for public participation in urban planning processes. Comput.Environ. Urban Syst. 34, 291–298.

Christopher James Pettit He is the research manager—Spatial Information Sciencesin the Future Farming Systems Research Division, the Department of Primary Indus-tries (DPI), Victoria. He is an honorary principal research fellow at the University ofMelbourne and senior research fellow RMIT University. The DPI spatial informationsciences research team develops and applies a range of spatial technologies includ-ing spatial decision support systems, visualisation, remote sensing, and GIS. Thesetechnologies are applied across a number of natural resource management andagricultural domains including: climate change, water use efficiency, agriculturalproductivity and rural land use change. He is the associate editor for the interna-tional journal—Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy and is on the editorial board forthe open access Future Internet journal. He has published approximately 100 peerreviewed papers and has participated in more than 20 International conferencesand workshops. He is the chair of the International Society for Photogrammetry andRemote Sensing (ISPRS) working group on geographical visualisation and virtualreality (2009-2012).

Christopher Raymond He is the director of Enviroconnect Pty Ltd and PhD candidatein the Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of SouthAustralia. In 2009, he was awarded the title of South Australian Young Entrepreneurof the Year in recognition of business achievements both in Australia and overseas.Academically, Christopher is known for the development of public participationGIS methods to integrate local and scientific values into environmental policy andplanning, and for developing new theories, methodologies and conceptual frame-works in the areas of place attachment, community perceptions of climate change,pro-environmental behaviour, and knowledge integration for environmental man-agement.

Brett Bryan He is a principal research scientist in CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.Through analysis of socio-economic and environmental processes, he takes an inte-grated approach to delivering cost-effective policy and management options forcomplex issues including conservation, land and water resources, energy, and foodsecurity, under climate change. He has a bachelor of arts in geography, masters ofenvironmental studies and his PhD thesis was on strategic revegetation planning. Heis currently a stream leader in the Sustainable Agriculture Flagship and leads severalprojects across other portfolios. His projects include integrated spatial and temporaldecision-making for allocating water resources for ecological and social benefits inthe River Murray floodplains; investment, risk and decision analysis for sustainableagricultural landscapes, and the integrated assessment of climate change vulner-ability. His projects aim to help key clients target investment in natural resourcemanagement to achieve greater benefit from limited resources.

Hayden Lewis He is a spatial information officer within the Future Farming SystemsResearch Division, Department of Primary Industries Victoria. Hayden’s interestslie in areas of geographical visualisation and spatial decision support tools such asthe Goulburn Broken WaterWatch Website, Fishtrack Visualisations, Lower Mur-ray Landscape Futures Portal, Landholder Linking tool, Goulburn Murray WaterAtlas, Virtual Soil Profile, and Victorian Land Use Information System. He has 6

d weaknesses of landscape visualisation for effective communicationplan.2011.01.001

is a contributing member of the International Society for Photogrammetry andRemote Sensing (ISPRS) working group on geographical visualisation and virtualreality. He is also am member of the OZVIZ (The Australian Visualisation and VirtualReality interest group) and the Google Maps API group (Google Maps API supportgroup).