Urban greenspace has consistently been argued to be of great importance to the wellbeing, health, and daily lives of residents and users. This paper reports results from a study that combined the visualisation of public results from a study that combined the visualisation of public greenspace with environmental economics, and that aimed to develop a method by which realistic computer models of sites could be used within preference studies. As part of a methodology that employed contingent rating to establish the values placed on specific greenspace sites, three-dimensional computer models were used to produce visualisations of particular environmental conditions. Of particular importance to the study was the influence of variables including lighting, season, time of day, and weather on the perception of respondents. This study followed previous work that established a suitable approach to the modelling and testing of entirely moveable physical variables within the built environment. As such, the study has established firmly that computer-generated visualisations are appropriate for use within environmental economic surveys, and that there is potential for a holistic range of attributes to be included in such studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AppletonKLovettASunnenbergGDockertyT, 2002, “Rural landscape visualisation from GIS databases: A comparison of approaches, options and problems”Computers, Environment and Urban Systems26141–162
2.
AustenS, 1997, “Social norms and minimum wages”, DP Series 97/6, Centre for Labour Market Research, Curtin University of Technology, Perth
3.
BishopI DWherrettJ RMillerD R, 2001, “Assessment of path choices on a country walk using a virtual environment”Landscape and Urban Planning52(44) 225–237
DanielT CMeitnerM M, 2001, “Representational validity of landscape visualizations: The effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas”Journal of Environmental Psychology2161–72
de KortYIjseelsteijnWKooijmanJSchurmansY, 2003, “Virtual laboratories: Comparability of real and virtual environments for environmental psychology”Presence12360–373
8.
DijkstraJvan LeeuwenJTimmermansH, 2003, “Evaluating design alternatives using conjoint experiments in virtual reality”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design30357–367
EllisC DLeeS-WKweonB-S, 2006, “Retail land use, neighborhood satisfaction and the urban forest: An investigation into the moderating and mediating effects of trees and shrubs”Landscape and Urban Planning7470–78
HanyuK, 1997, “Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas after dark”Journal of Environmental Psychology17301–315
16.
HeftHNasarJ L, 2000, “Evaluating environmental scenes using dynamic versus static displays”Environment and Behaviour32301–322
17.
HershbergerR GCassR C, 1988, “Predicting user responses to buildings”, in Environmental Aesthetics: Theories, Research, and Applications Ed. NasarJ L (Cambridge University Press, New York)
18.
HuangC LKanKFuT, 2000, “Joint estimation of consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for food safety”Academia Economic Papers28429–449
19.
HubbardP, 1997, “Diverging attributes of planners and the public: An examination of architectural interpretation”Journal of Architectural and Planning Research14317–328
20.
HudspethT R, 1986, “Visual Preference as tool for facilitating citizen participation in urban waterfront revitalization”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management23(4) 373–385
JonesB, 1990Neighbourhood Planning: A Guide for Cities and Planners (Planners Press, Chicago, IL)
23.
JorgensenAHitchmoughJCalvertT, 2002, “Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference”Landscape and Urban Planning60135–150
24.
JorgensenAHitchmoughJDunnetN, 2007, “Woodland as a setting for housing-appreciation and fear and the contribution to residential satisfaction and place identity in Warrington New Town, UK”Landscape and Urban Planning79273–287
25.
KaplanSKaplanRWendtJ, 1972, “Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material”Perception and Psychophysics12350–356
26.
LaingRDaviesAHargreavesAScottS, 2002, “The application of 3D modelling techniques in built environment evaluation”Studies in Urban and Regional Planning10119–127
27.
LaingRMillerDDaviesA-MScottS, 2006, “Urban greenspace: The incorporation of environmental values in a decision support system”IT in Construction11177–196
28.
LaingRConniffACraigTGalan-DiazCScottS, 2007, “Design and use of a virtual heritage model to enable a comparison of active navigation of buildings and spaces with passive observation”Automation in Construction16830–841
29.
LoS MYiuC YLoA, 2003, “An analysis of attributes affecting urban open space design and their environmental implications”Management of Environmental Quality12604–614
30.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, 1969People and Planning (HMSO, London)
NasarJ LKangJ, 1989, “A post-injury evaluation: The Ohio State University design competition for a center for the visual arts”Environment and Behaviour21464–484
33.
NewmanO, 1973Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design (Macmillan, New York)
34.
PurcellA T, 1986, “Environmental perception and affect: Schema discrepancy model”Environment and Behaviour183–30
35.
RohrmannBBishopI, 2002, “Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban environments”Journal of Environmental Psychology22319–331
36.
RyanR L, 2006, “Comparing the attitudes of local residents, planners, and developers about preserving rural character in New England”Landscape and Urban Planning755–22
37.
SanoffH, 2000Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning (John Wiley, New York)
38.
ShuttleworthS, 1980, “The use of photographs as an environmental presentation medium in landscape studies”Journal of Environmental Management1161–76
39.
StampsA E, 1990, “Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis”Perceptual and Motor Skills71907–913
40.
TanAde VriesBTimmermansH, 2006, “Using a stereo panoramic interactive navigation system to measure pedestrian activity scheduling behaviour: A test of validity”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design33541–557
41.
Tewdwr-JonesM, 1999, “Reasserting town planning: Challenging the representation and image of the planning profession”, in Planning Beyond 2000 Eds AllmendingerPChapmanM (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)
42.
UlrichR S, 1986, “Human responses to vegetation and landscapes”Landscape and Urban Planning1329–44
43.
WillisAGjersoeNHavardCKerridgeJKuklaR, 2004, “Human movement behaviour in urban spaces: Implications for the design and modelling of effective pedestrian environments”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design31805–828
44.
WilsonM A, 1996, “The socialization of architectural preference”Journal of Environmental Psychology1633–44
45.
WongK-KDomroesM, 2005, “The visual quality of urban park scenes of Kowloon Park, Hong Kong: Likeability, affective appraisal, and cross-cultural perspectives”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32617–632
46.
WynneE, (Ed.), 1992The Culture Industry: The Arts in Urban Regeneration (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants)
47.
ZubeE HSellJ LTaylorJ G, 1982, “Landscape perception: Research application and theory”Landscape Planning91–33
