Environmental visualizations can improve the publics’ understanding of spatial information and enhance dialogue during community engagement. By interviewing and surveying planning and design professionals, this study examines motivations for using environmental visualizations in community engagement. Professionals recognize the communicative benefits of environmental visualizations, but also acknowledge that they are sometimes used to constrain public debate by enhancing project imagibility. This article contributes to a critical assessment of the ethical use of environmental visualization by exploring techniques and practices that can create misinformation within community engagement. Overall findings contribute to a clearer understanding of environmental visualizations as a form of design marketing.
AppletonKatyLovettAndrew. 2005. “GIS-Based Visualisation of Development Proposals: Reactions from Planning and Related Professionals.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems no. 29:321–339.
2.
BishopIan D.PettitChristopher J.ShethFalakSharmaSubhash. 2013. “Evaluation of Data Visualisation Options for Land-Use Policy and Decision Making in Response to Climate Change.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design40 (2): 213–33.
3.
BishopIan D.RohrmannBernd. 2003. “Subjective Responses to Simulated and Real Environments: A Comparison.” Landscape and Urban Planning65:261–77.
4.
BosselmannPeter. 1984. “The Berkeley Environmental Simulation Laboratory: A 12 Year Anniversary.” Berkeley Planning Journal1 (1): 150–60.
5.
CarrollJohn M.RossonMary BethZhouJingying. 2005. “Collective Efficacy as a Measure of Community.” Paper presented at: The SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, Oregon, April 2–7.
DownesMelanieLangeEckart. 2015. “What You See Is Not Always What You Get: A Qualitative, Comparative Analysis of Ex Ante Visualizations with Ex Post Photography of Landscape and Architectural Projects.” Landscape and Urban Planning142:136–46.
9.
FischerFrank. 2000. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
10.
GillLewisLangeEckart. 2015. “Getting Virtual 3D Landscapes Out of the Lab.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems54:356–62.
11.
GillLewisLangeEckartMorganEdRomanoDaniela. 2013. “An Analysis of Usage of Different Types of Visualisation Media within a Collaborative Planning Workshop Environment.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design40:742–54.
12.
GordonEricBaldwin-PhilippiJessica. 2014. “Playful Civic Learning: Enabling Reflection and Lateral Trust in Game-Based Public Participation.” International Journal of Communication8:759–86.
13.
GordonEricSchirraStevenHollanderJustin. 2011. “Immersive Planning: A Conceptual Model for Designing Public Participation with New Technologies.” 38:505–19.
14.
GreeneJennifer C.CaracelliValerie J.GrahamWendy F.1989. “Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis11 (3): 255–74.
15.
GroulxMark.LemieuxChristopher J.LewisJohn L.BrownSarah. 2017. “Understanding Consumer Behaviour and Adaptation Planning Responses to Climate-Driven Environmental Change in Canada’s Parks and Protected Areas: A Climate Futurescapes Approach.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management60 (6): 1016–35.
16.
HanzlMalgorzata. 2007. “Information Technology as a Tool for Public Participation in Urban Planning: A Review of Experiments and Potentials.” Design Studies28:289–307.
17.
HealeyPatsy. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
18.
HeuerLarryPenrodStevenKattanAyelet. 2007. “The Role of Societal Benefits and Fairness Concerns among Decision Makers and Decision Recipients.” Law and Human Behavior31 (6): 573–610.
19.
InnesJudith E.BooherDavid E.2015. “A Turning Point for Planning Theory? Overcoming Dividing Discourses.” Planning Theory14 (2): 195–213.
20.
LangeEckart. 2005. “Issues and Questions for Research in Communicating with the Public through Visualizations.” In Trends in Real-Time Landscape Visualization and Participation, edited by BuhmannE.PaarP.BishopI.LangeE., 16–26. Heidelberg: Herbert Wichmann.
21.
LangeEckartHehl-LangeSigrid. 2005. “Combining a Participatory Planning Approach with a Virtual Landscape Model for the Siting of Wind Turbines.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management48 (6): 833–52.
22.
LeeMaria. 2017. “Knowledge and Landscape in Wind Energy Planning.” Legal Studies37 (1): 3–24.
23.
LewisJohn L.2012. “More Art Than Science: The Sources and Effects of Stylistic Variation in Visualization for Planning and Design.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design39:551–65.
24.
LewisJohn L.CasselloJeffGroulxMark. 2012. “Effective Environmental Visualization for Urban Planning and Design: Interdisciplinary Reflections on a Rapidly Evolving Technology.” Journal of Urban Technology19 (3): 85–106.
25.
LewisJohn L.SheppardStephen R. J.2006. “Culture and Communication: Can Landscape Visualization Improve Forest Management Consultation with Indigenous Communities?” Landscape and Urban Planning77:291–313.
26.
LovettAndrewAppletonKatyWarren-KretzschmarBartyVon HaarenChristina. 2015. “Using 3D Visualization Methods in Landscape Planning: An Evaluation of Options and Practical Issues.” Landscape and Urban Planning142:85–94.
27.
MacFarlaneRobertStaggHarryTurnerKeithLievesleyMatthew. 2005. “Peering through the Smoke? Tensions in Landscape Visualisation.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems29 (3): 341–59.
28.
MilesMatthew B.HubermanA. Michael. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29.
NetoPedro L.2006. “Public Perception in Contemporary Portugal: The Digital Representation of Space.” Journal of Urban Design11 (3): 347–66.
30.
OhmerMary L.2007. “Citizen Participation in Neighbourhood Organizations and Its Relationship to Volunteers’ Self and Collective Efficacy and Sense of Community.” Social Work Research31 (2): 109–20.
31.
Ontario Professional Planners Institute. 2012. Ontario Professional Planners Institute Independent Professional Judgement Standards of Practice. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Professional Planners Institute.
32.
OrlandBrianBudthimedheeKanjaneeUusitaloJori. 2001. “Considering Virtual Worlds as Representations of Landscape Realities and as Tools for Landscape Planning.” Landscape and Urban Planning54:139–48.
33.
PaarPhilip. 2006. “Landscape Visualizations: Applications and Requirements of 3D Visualization Software for Environmental Planning.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems30:815–39.
34.
PietschSusan M.2000. “Computer Visualization in the Design Control of Urban Environments: A Literature Review.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27:521–36.
35.
PisarskiAlan E.2007. “Vision of Visualization: Communicating Problem-Solving Concepts to the Public.” TR News252:4–6.
36.
PotterW. JamesLevine-DonnersteinDeborah. 1999. “Rethinking Validity and Reliability in Content Analysis.” Journal of Applied Communication Research no. 27:258–84.
37.
SchensulStephen L.SchensulJeanLeCompteMargaret. 1999. Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews and Questionnaires. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
38.
SchrothOlafPondEllenSheppardStephen R. J.2015. “Evaluating Presentation Formats of Local Climate Change in Community Planning with Regard to Process and Outcomes.” Landscape and Urban Planning142:147–58.
39.
SenbelMagedChurchSarah P.2011. “Design Empowerment: The Limits of Accessible Visualization Media in Neighbourhood Densification.” Journal of Planning Education and Research31 (4): 423–37.
40.
SheppardStephen R. J.1989. Visual Simulation: A User Guide for Architects, Engineers, and Planners. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
41.
SheppardStephen R. J.2001. “Guidance for Crystal Ball Gazers: Developing a Code of Ethics for Landscape Visualization.” Landscape and Urban Planning54 (1): 183–99.
42.
SieberRené. 2006. “Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers96 (3): 491–507.
43.
SlotterbackCariss S.2011. “Planners’ Perspectives on Using Technology in Participatory Processes.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design38:468–85.
44.
TeddlieCharlesYuFen. 2007. “Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology with Examples.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research1 (1): 77–100.
45.
TerwelBart W.HarinckFiekeEllemersNaomiDaamenDancker D. L.2010. “Voice in Political Decision-Making: The Effect of Group Voice on Perceived Trustworthiness of Decision Makers and Subsequent Acceptance of Decisions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology16 (2): 173–86.
46.
TobiasSilviaBuserTobiasBucheckerMatthias. 2016. “Does Real-Time Visualization Support Local Stakeholders in Developing Landscape Visions?” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design43:184–97.
47.
WerglesNathalieMuharAndreas. 2009. “The Role of Computer Visualization in the Communication of Urban Design: A Comparison of Viewer Responses to Visualizations versus On-Site Visits.” Landscape and Urban Planning91:171–82.
48.
WissenUlrikeSchrothOlafLangeEckartSchmidWilly A.2008. “Approaches to Integrating Indicators into 3D Landscape Visualisations and Their Benefits for Participative Planning Situations.” Journal of Environmental Management89 (3): 184–96.
49.
Wissen-HayekUlrike. 2011. “Which Is the Appropriate 3D Visualization Type for Participatory Landscape Planning Workshops? A Portfolio of Their Effectiveness.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design38:921–39.
50.
YinRobert. 2009. Case Study Research: Designs and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
