años del Instituto de Literatura Hispanoamericana (2015) Simposio

In the research process, it was found that a number of planning professionals were aware of the potential risk of using computer visualisation. Even though there have been many

recent developments in digital technology, scepticism65 of the technology still exists. An associate landscape architect, Interviewee D particularly raised issues concerning this;

I think there is a lot of - probably less now – of scepticism about almost everything computer generated. But that seems to be a lot more in terms of the acceptance of about the images computer generated.

This comment suggests that photomontages were most likely to be misinterpreted. Moreover, it was indicated that:

[Photomontages] can be misleading. That is why I prefer VR models you cannot hide anything. Photomontages are theoretically looking at the nicest bit of the site. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee A)

That’s the impression; looking at the computer screen it isn’t always accurate whereas there is more confidence in drawings. It has a scale on it. People don’t think it is real they think it is an artistic impression even though it is based on OS data. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee E)

However, some interviewees pointed out that scepticism would be dependent on the age of the person viewing the image and/or techno-phobia. These suggestions were untested in the research.

6.3.1.1 Credibility, accuracy, and reliability of computer visualisation

The quality of computer visualisations is dependent on the current technology available and it is closely related to the level of detail. These issues will be dealt with in greater detail below. However, it is important for computer visualisation to be credible when it is implemented in the development management process in the UK. Therefore, there is a need to develop technology which meets scientific and social needs.

Earlier research by Sheppard (2004) suggested66 that judging the quality of computer visualisation requires the setting of standards or thresholds along the various quality dimensions.

65

Appleton (2001) suggested that value judgements would always be present, and parts of the image would be selected and set up to show the scheme to its best effect. While this could be result of artistic licence, there are further questions of intentional incorrectness in visualisations, for example to reduce the apparent impact of a proposal.

66

He also claimed that ‘Better’ is often interpreted to mean faster, higher tech, more realistic, more user-friendly. However, these aspects have as much to do with efficiency, profit, image, popular demand and selling a product or a design, as they do with more meaningful factors for protecting the public interest: e.g. safer and more informed decisions, defensibility and other ethical considerations. Ethics refer to moral principles, which distinguish between right and wrong; in professional practice, this usually means conforming to a recognised standard or codes of conduct. Validity generally refers to whether an instrument or finding is sound, defensible and well-grounded or appropriate to the issue at hand.

In the semi structured interviews, practitioners were asked ‘how can you decide the quality of computer visualisation’ and ‘when do computer visualisation take a part in decision making’. Most practitioners indicated that there was a greater likelihood of influencing planning decisions if computer visualisation is used.

However, within these uses, the majority of practitioners stressed the need for credibility in the planning media used in the development management process even though there is a certain degree of artistic licence in the media. The real need for visualisation is to provide a better means of communication and to support more informed decisions.

However, during the case studies, computer visualisation models were prepared on the basis of the surveyed information. From the surveyed information, it has been found that there was much scope for artistic licence in the creation of real-time landscape models. Although it starts from surveyed information, virtual reality models in planning use these options for preparers to consider (An, 2005).

 Texture – type, variety, accuracy, resolution

 Camera – type, angle, position, focal length, movement

 Movement – speed, height, collision handling, terrain following

In addition, in the case of image manipulation, colour and scale options are to be considered for production.

A highly realistic image may in fact be very inaccurate67 or even show a completely fantastic scene with no ecological validity. Common problem of credibility in visualisation is that sometimes computer visualisation is assessed as a subjective view; however,

credibility of visualisation requires to be objective.

Credibility can come from scientific protocols. Without the scientific grounding, computer visualisation cannot be assessed by recipients, where accuracy can affect scepticism: it addresses the issue of truthfulness or fidelity of the visualisation imagery to the actual or expected appearance of the landscape in question. It is analogous to a response equivalence

Reliability refers to consistency in repeated applications. Both these concepts have implications on the ethical use of landscape visualisation.

67

Appleton (2001) also claimed that while some of those creating visualisations may continue to strive for maximum detail, it is worth bearing in mind this comment from one participant: “Wrong images can exist, but there can never be a completely ‘right’, totally realistic image. The information contained in the image will always be greater than zero, but can never be complete.” Therefore, it may be better to work towards an appropriate level of detail, tailored to the proposal being illustrated.

in terms of before/after comparison, although it is directly measurable in terms of objective image qualities, rather than mediated through observer responses. It relates also to the concept of ‘ecological validity’ described by Palmer et al. (2001), referring to the assurance that the environments visualised are ecologically feasible.

Some of practitioners stressed that accuracy is the most important factor for the quality of computer visualisation;

Accuracy is critical. Without that, we cannot use computer visualisation. We cannot defend what we are doing and what we are proposing. That is the key. It will be good if that looks good but accuracy is more important. (A director, Interviewee G)

Computer visualisation needs to be based on scientific survey such as Ordnance Survey. Then we can say the computer visualisation is accurate. (A GIS officer, Interviewee K)

Accuracy…it gives more information and it is easy to understand what the project is going to be like in the model. So in some aspects 3D visualisations are more accurate because it is 3D also it is based on OS information. So I would say computer models are more accurate. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee A)

Sheppard (2004) suggested that scientific definitions of reliability68 refers to internal consistency of methods: ‘the degree to which an instrument … can retrieve the same answers when applied under similar conditions’

In terms of a planning application, some practical implications were raised on credibility by practitioners.

It does bring in more accuracy to subjective view when you know how it has been done and you know the method used to create the model and the assumptions made. EIAs have to be done by landscape professionals because their subjective views are much better than somebody else’s subjective view. Yes it would affect the subject view. (A senior landscape architect, Interviewee F)

Landscape architects are doing the design and then are sending it to someone else to visualise. That’s why you pick on this issue. That level of information you might get when you have to generate computer visualisation, how accurate the information is you get and how much information you interpret that’s the problem we are going to have. Is that the plan that you can see technically accurate or not? It’s got a scale. Buildings are that big and trees are that high. Now somebody is putting

68

He continued that in practice, reliability requires consistency in the visualisation process, and consistency in objective: opponents to a project may create a very different set of visualisations than the applicant, using the same datasets but with different motivations. The reliability of visualisations can potentially be affected by many diverse factors, such as data quality, operator procedure and skill level, deliberate bias or stakeholder influence, ‘bugs’ or data incompatibilities in the software, etc. most of these factors also threaten the validity.

something into a landscape and if you are putting an animation together, you might be ending up with 50% of information that is real. And you have made up 50%. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee E)

An associate landscape architect, Interviewee E’s 50/50 theory above did not come from any research figure. This was based on his own judgement. However, it has valuable points. In fact, this comment contains the risk of credibility loss in computer visualisation

production.

6.3.1.2 Scepticism continues

Interestingly enough, one interviewee indicated that if people wish to manipulate the information to provide a biased perspective, they can do this without technology. This is a problem that is inherent within planning and not just a problem of computer visualisation. Given the importance of the issue scepticism was explored further.

Generally speaking, computer visualisations were much appreciated by the practitioners. They make the planning process more comprehensive and using visualisations we can see what is going on and see what we were unable to catch with traditional media. It is claimed that:

Yes, they [consultants] can possibly manipulate computer visualisation. But they can do that with drawings anyway. As long as you are showing 5 to 10 years down in the line on your model or you honestly believe what it will look like but you cannot legislate for vandalism or any of the kind of damage of sites. So any type of consultation tool is open for argument in terms of issues on accuracy and it depends on what information you want to put in. (A GIS officer, Interviewee K)

I think people need to be aware that visualisations represent one person or group of people’s view on what it might look like in year 10, year 20, and year 30. It is not exact. Nobody is going to predict the future. This [visualisation] has given people a better indication of what the end product might be and the aim is to have…it as presented in the visualisation. It is not going to be an exact replica of what it might look like in year 5.

Moreover, the majority of the Private Landscape Consultant Group recognises that computer generated visualisations are as accurate as traditional paper drawings even though it always contains assumptions on visioning. The Forest Organisation Group also indicates that computer visualisation is as accurate as paper drawings because it is based on the same Ordnance Survey information.

Another difference between computer visualisation and paper drawings is how you present the results to viewers.

We’ve asked to review photomontages done by some other company. Someone is doing EIA, and someone did photomontages. Photomontages were so misleading. I can understand why they’ve taken the photos from those points. They are taken from points which probably show the building in the best setting so the photomontages were there to sell their building. They won’t demonstrate the impact if you see what I mean. Everything was badly misleading. If you read the text you can clearly find the differences between the photomontages and the description in the text. Materials they said they were using in the text is different. All this sort of things added together…I thought that it wasn’t a true reflection of the scheme. (An associate landscape architect, Interviewee E)

However, the case study (in Chapter 5) indicated that the level of realism would not affect any judgement they made. Since respondents are aware of the site, context and so on, the main focus was on the tree height, vegetation screening rather than how realistic the models were69.