Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-2
A visibility-based approach to manage the vertical urban development and maintain visual sustainability of urban mountain landscapes: A case of Mufu Mountain in Nanjing,China
China has experienced a continuous population increase in urban areas over the last few decades with limited land for construction, which has prompted upward growth in the urban environment. Rapid urbanization has encroached on mountain landscapes and deteriorated the visual landscape in different parts of China. This study aims to investigate and analyze the proper balance between visual landscape protection of urban mountains and vertical urban development using a visibility-based method. An interactive and quantitative method was developed in this research using multiple digital 2D and 3D platforms based on the specification of prohibited spaces for constructive expansion in building height control. A metropolitan area near Mufu Mountain in Nanjing, China, was selected as a case study to implement the proposed method and simulate multiple vertical urban development scenarios. According to the comparison of different scenarios, there is a better building height layout to simultaneously satisfy the requirement of sustaining the Mufu mountain’s visibility and the construction capacity proposed by the documented plan. Two polynomial models were generated to quantitatively investigate the relationship between the protection of mountain landscapes and vertical urban development and served as a reference basis for urban planners to formulate the construction volume control strategy around Mufu Mountain. The proposed method in this study can help planners and urban managers to seek an appropriate approach to control building heights and achieve visual sustainability.
AtmişEÖzdenSLiseW (2007) Urbanization pressures on the natural forests in Turkey: an overview. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening6(2): 83–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2007.01.002
2.
BattyM (2001) Exploring isovist fields: space and shape in architectural and urban morphology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28(1): 123–150.
3.
BellEDavisonJ (2013) Visual management studies: empirical and theoretical approaches. International Journal of Management Reviews15(2): 167–184.
4.
BenedickMLBurnhamClarke A (1985) Perceiving architectural space: From optic arrays to isovists. In: WarrenWHShawRE (eds). Persistence and change. London: Psychology Press, 103–114.
5.
BenediktML (1979) To take hold of space: isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design6(1): 47–65.
6.
BielingCPlieningerTPirkerH, et al. (2014) Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological Economics105: 19–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.013
7.
BuXXChenXWangSQ, et al. (2021) The influence of newly built high-rise buildings on visual impact assessment of historic urban landscapes: a case study of Xi'an Bell Tower. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering21: 1304–1319. DOI: 10.1080/13467581.2021.1930011
8.
CimburovaZBlumentrathS (2022) Viewshed-based modelling of visual exposure to urban greenery – An efficient GIS tool for practical planning applications. Landscape and Urban Planning222: 104395. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104395
DaiEWangYMaL, et al. (2018) ‘Urban-rural’ gradient analysis of landscape changes around cities in mountainous regions: a case study of the hengduan mountain region in Southwest China. Sustainability10(4): 1019. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1019
11.
DavisL SBenediktM L (1979) Computational models of space: isovists and isovist fields. Computer Graphics and Image Processing11(1): 49–72.
12.
DuH YJiangHSongX J, et al. (2016) Assessing the visual aesthetic quality of vegetation landscape in urban green space from a visitor’s perspective. Journal of Urban Planning and Development142(3): 04016007. doi: 10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000329.
13.
EbenbergerMArnbergerA (2019) Exploring visual preferences for structural attributes of urban forest stands for restoration and heat relief. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening41: 272–282. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.011
14.
EhrlichDMelchiorriMCapitaniC (2021) Population trends and urbanisation in mountain ranges of the world. Land10(3): 255. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/3/255
15.
Fisher-GewirtzmanD (2018) Integrating ‘weighted views’ to quantitative 3D visibility analysis as a predictive tool for perception of space. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science45(2): 345–366. DOI: 10.1177/0265813516676486
16.
Fisher-GewirtzmanDWagnerIA (2006) The spatial openness index: an automated model for three-dimensional visual analysis of urban environments. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research23(1): 77–89. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000236713100005.
17.
GrindeBPatilGG (2009) Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being?International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health6(9): 2332–2343. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/6/9/2332
18.
GuneyCAkdag GirginkayaSCagdasG, et al. (2012) Tailoring a geomodel for analyzing an urban skyline. Landscape and Urban Planning105(1–2): 160–173.
19.
GuoXWangHWuX, et al. (2017) A study of plot ratio/building height restrictions in high density cities using 3D spatial analysis technology: a case in Hong Kong. Food and Chemical Toxicology: An International Journal Published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association110: 13–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.012
20.
HernándezJGarciaLAyugaF (2004) Assessment of the visual impact made on the landscape by new buildings: a methodology for site selection. Landscape and Urban Planning68(1): 15–28. DOI: 10.1016/s0169-2046(03)00116-6
21.
Hong Kong Planning Department (2015) Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. Hong Kong: Planning Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative.
22.
KelesEAtikDBayrakG (2018) Visual landscape quality assessment in historical cultural landscape areas. European Journal of Sustainable Development7(3): 287–300. DOI: 10.14207/ejsd.2018.v7n3p287-300
23.
KoziatekODragićevićS (2017) iCity 3D: a geosimualtion method and tool for three-dimensional modeling of vertical urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning167: 356–367. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.06.021
24.
LloberaM (2003) Extending GIS-based visual analysis: the concept of visualscapes. International Journal of Geographical Information Science17(1): 25–48.
25.
LonerganCHedleyN (2015) Unpacking isovists: a framework for 3D spatial visibility analysis. Cartography and Geographic Information Science43: 87–102. DOI: 10.1080/15230406.2015.1065761
26.
LopesASMacedoDVBritoAYS, et al. (2019) Assessment of urban cultural-heritage protection zones using a co-visibility-analysis tool. Computers Environment and Urban Systems76: 139–149. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2019.04.009
27.
LynchK (1964) The Image of the City. MA, US: MIT press.
28.
MorelloERattiC (2009) A digital image of the city: 3D isovists in lynch's urban analysis. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design36(5): 837–853. DOI: 10.1068/b34144t
29.
NijhuisSVan Der HoevenF (2018) Exploring the skyline of rotterdam and the hague. visibility analysis and its implications for tall building policy. Built Environment43(4): 571–588.
30.
OzturkSAyanEIsinkaralarO (2018) Visual landscape evaluation of kastamonu clock tower environment as a historical urban area. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin27(12B): 9617–9625. <Go to ISI>://WOS:000456226800025.
31.
Pardo-GarciaSMerida-RodriguezM (2017) Measurement of visual parameters of landscape using projections of photographs in GIS. Computers Environment and Urban Systems61: 56–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2016.09.005
32.
PazhouhanfarMMsMK (2014) Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening13(1): 145–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.08.005
33.
SaeidiSMirkarimiSHMohammadzadehM, et al. (2019) Assessing the visual impacts of new urban features: coupling visibility analysis with 3D city modelling. Geocarto International34(12): 1315–1331. DOI: 10.1080/10106049.2018.1478891
34.
SenaratneHBröringASchreckT (2013) Using reverse viewshed analysis to assess the location correctness of visually generated VGI. Transactions in GIS17(3): 369–386.
35.
StampsAE (2002) Fractals, skylines, nature and beauty. Landscape and Urban Planning60(3): 163–184. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00054-3
36.
SukwaiJMishimaNSrinurakN (2022) Balancing Cultural Heritage Conservation: Visual Integrity Assessment to Support Change Management in the Buffer Zone of Chiang Mai Historic City Using GIS and Computer-Generated 3D Modeling. Land11(5): 666. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/666
37.
TandyCRV (1967) The Isovist Method of Landscape Survey. London: Paper presented at the Methods of Landscape Analysis.
38.
TavernorR (2007) Visual and cultural sustainability: The impact of tall buildings on London. Landscape and Urban Planning83(1): 2–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.010
39.
TurnerADoxaMO'sullivanD, et al. (2001) From isovists to visibility graphs: a methodology for the analysis of architectural space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28(1): 103–121.
40.
TveitM S (2009) Indicators of visual scale as predictors of landscape preference; a comparison between groups. Journal of Environmental Management90(9): 2882–2888. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.021
41.
WheatleyD (1995) Cumulative viewshed analysis: a GIS-based method for investigating intervisibility, and its archaeological application. In: LockGRStancicG (eds). Archaeology and geographical information systems: a European perspective. Florida: CRC Press, 171–185.
42.
WhiteMRLangenheimN (2018) A spatio-temporal decision support system for designing with street trees. International Journal of E-Planning Research7(4): 1–24. DOI: 10.4018/ijepr.2018100101
43.
WilliamsDSMáñez CostaMSutherlandC, et al. (2019) Vulnerability of informal settlements in the context of rapid urbanization and climate change. Environment and Urbanization31(1): 157–176. DOI: 10.1177/0956247818819694
44.
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 Design32(4): 617–632.
45.
YinL (2017) Street level urban design qualities for walkability: combining 2D and 3D GIS measures. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems64: 288–296. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2017.04.001
46.
YinLHastingsJ (2007) Capitalizing on views: assessing visibility by using 3D visualization and GIS technologies for hotel development in the city of Niagara falls, New York. Journal of Urban Technology14(3): 59–82. DOI: 10.1080/10630730801927483
47.
YinLShiodeN (2014) 3D spatial-temporal GIS modeling of urban environments to support design and planning processes. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability7(2): 152–169. DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2013.879452
48.
YosifofRTrossman-HaiflerYFisher-GewirtzmanD (2022) VR Experiment that Supports the Development of Analytical Tools for Simulating and Predicting Urban Well-Being. In: PakBWurzerGStouffsR (eds). Co-creating the Future: Inclusion in and through Design (Volume 2). Ghent: eCAADe and KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture, 485–494.
49.
YuSYYuBLSongW, et al. (2016) View-based greenery: a three-dimensional assessment of city buildings’ green visibility using floor green view index. Landscape and Urban Planning152: 13–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.004
50.
ZhangGvan OosteromPVerbreeE (2017) Point cloud based visibility analysis: first experimental results. In: Societal Geo-Innovation : Short Papers, Posters and Poster Abstracts of the 20th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University and Research. Paper presented at thehttps://agile-online.org/index.php/conference/proceedings/proceedings-2017
51.
ZhangS (2018) The Preservation of 20th-century architectural Heritage in China: evolution and prospects. Built Heritage2(2): 4–16. DOI: 10.1186/BF03545690
52.
ZhaoYWuBWuJ, et al. (2020) Mapping 3D visibility in an urban street environment from mobile LiDAR point clouds. GIScience and Remote Sensing57: 797–812. DOI: 10.1080/15481603.2020.1804248
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.
