IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v43y2016i1p184-197.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does real-time visualization support local stakeholders in developing landscape visions?

Author

Listed:
  • Silvia Tobias
  • Tobias Buser
  • Matthias Buchecker

Abstract

Research on visualization during participatory planning workshops is widespread, but there are hardly any studies comparing workshops with and without visualization. We conducted four workshops with local stakeholders to develop landscape visions for the year 2030. In three workshops we used different techniques to support the visioning process with real-time visualization: drawings by hand, a town planning computer-aided design software, and a combination of GIS, Google Earth, and SketchUp with Cinema 4D. In the fourth workshop the participants developed their visions without any visualization. In all cases the participants evaluated the workshops expost by means of a standardized questionnaire.The comparative analysis of the data revealed that visualization supports the participants consistently but only moderately in imagining future landscape conditions. In particular, visualization provided a better common basis for communication, whereas it only marginally inspired the viewers to develop new ideas. The main trade-off of using visualizations that we found was that the participants assessed their influence on the discussion as too strong as they focused the discussion on visual aspects. Among the visualization techniques tested, drawings by hand appeared to be particularly useful for creating long-term (more than fifteen years) landscape visions. Future research on the use of visualization during workshops should concentrate on the perceptions and requirements of the viewers.

Suggested Citation

  • Silvia Tobias & Tobias Buser & Matthias Buchecker, 2016. "Does real-time visualization support local stakeholders in developing landscape visions?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(1), pages 184-197, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:43:y:2016:i:1:p:184-197
    DOI: 10.1177/0265813515603866
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0265813515603866
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0265813515603866?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Lewis & Jeffrey Casello & Mark Groulx, 2012. "Effective Environmental Visualization for Urban Planning and Design: Interdisciplinary Reflections on a Rapidly Evolving Technology," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 85-106.
    2. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Ofei-Manu & Satoshi Shimano, 2012. "In Transition towards Sustainability: Bridging the Business and Education Sectors of Regional Centre of Expertise Greater Sendai Using Education for Sustainable Development-Based Social Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(7), pages 1-26, July.
    2. Joshua Henkel & Georg Schwesinger, 2020. "Establishing Sustainable Consumption - How Future Policies Can Channel Consumer Preferences," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2007, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    3. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    4. Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 291-307.
    5. Mercer-Mapstone, Lucy & Rifkin, Will & Moffat, Kieren & Louis, Winnifred, 2017. "Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 137-146.
    6. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Maria Stella Righettini, 2021. "Framing Sustainability. Evidence from Participatory Forums to Taylor the Regional 2030 Agenda to Local Contexts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Amer Ait Sidhoum & K Hervé Dakpo & Laure Latruffe, 2022. "Trade-offs between economic, environmental and social sustainability on farms using a latent class frontier efficiency model: Evidence for Spanish crop farms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, January.
    9. Aubert, Alice H. & Esculier, Fabien & Lienert, Judit, 2020. "Recommendations for online elicitation of swing weights from citizens in environmental decision-making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    10. Matthew Cohen & Arnim Wiek & Braden Kay & John Harlow, 2015. "Aligning Public Participation to Stakeholders’ Sustainability Literacy—A Case Study on Sustainable Urban Development in Phoenix, Arizona," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-20, July.
    11. Andrea K. Gerlak & Tanya Heikkila & Sharon L. Smolinski & Dave Huitema & Derek Armitage, 2018. "Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: a review of the scholarship," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 335-371, September.
    12. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    13. Patricia E. Perkins, 2013. "Environmental activism and gender," Chapters, in: Deborah M. Figart & Tonia L. Warnecke (ed.), Handbook of Research on Gender and Economic Life, chapter 31, pages 504-521, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Thomas Sauer & Stephanie Barnebeck & Yannick Kalff & Judith Schicklinski, 2015. "ROCSET – The Role of Cities in the Socio-Ecological Transition of Europe. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 93," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58134.
    15. Elisabeth Schauppenlehner-Kloyber & Marianne Penker, 2016. "Between Participation and Collective Action—From Occasional Liaisons towards Long-Term Co-Management for Urban Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Ison, Ray & Blackmore, Chris & Iaquinto, Benjamin L., 2013. "Towards systemic and adaptive governance: Exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning metaphors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 34-42.
    17. Marconi, Valentina & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2017. "Identifying typologies of rural areas based on the importance of different public goods and bads," 2017 Sixth AIEAA Conference, June 15-16, Piacenza, Italy 261273, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    18. Allain, Sandrine & Salliou, Nicolas, 2022. "Making differences legible: Incommensurability as a vehicle for sustainable landscape management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    19. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    20. Dolter, Brett, 2021. "Greening the Saskatchewan grid: A case study in deliberative energy modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:43:y:2016:i:1:p:184-197. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.