One of the previously identified research gaps in NFM is the investigation of methods and suitable tools for effective communication of (often complex) data (Environment Agency, 2014). The aim of this research was to explore the potential of the Google Earth virtual globe tour approach for landscape
visualisation as an engagement tool to communicate the potential for NFM in the Isbourne catchment. This catchment suffered significant flooding in 2007 and has a failing WFD status, partially attributed to ongoing diffuse phosphates pollution from agriculture. As the NFM project progresses, communication with a wide range of stakeholders throughout the catchment will be required to engage and motivate them to get involved.
The first objective of this research was to identify the information requirements that could facilitate positive stakeholder engagement. By collaborating with members of a community group, the ICG, early in the visualisation design process it was possible to identify relevant data that also satisfied the requirement of being free and open to enable online distribution. End user evaluation indicated that the tour content satisfied these information requirements with 38% of online participants very interested and 58% somewhat interested in finding out more about NFM. Suitable open data was available to meet most of the identified information requirements. Information that participants identified would improve their understanding of the catchment included additional details of historical flood events and ground level photographic imagery of the river, to support the Google Earth satellite imagery which lacks required levels of realism at close scale and perspective views.
The main limitation to the content was the availability of open licence data to demonstrate historical land use change, with deficiencies in the historical availability and resolution of the open licence EU CORINE Land Cover data. Some information was more difficult to represent visually, such as the impact of land management on the environment and the NFM techniques and potential impacts. However, it was possible to add photographs and text information with
links to relevant websites that could be explored independently as required for viewers to gain a better understanding of these. Although at this stage of the project it was not appropriate to identify locations or specific NFM techniques, further details on these could be provided using placemark balloons in the future. The second objective was to establish whether landscape visualisation can enhance the communication and understanding of spatial information related to NFM. Although the sample size (n=25) was not large enough for detailed
statistical analysis some inferences were possible from the end user analysis. The online survey results (using a rating scale of 1 to 6) indicate that the virtual globe tour was helpful for demonstrating the catchment features (mean rating = 5.24) and the issues it faces (mean = 4.92), with participants commenting positively on the ability to see the flood extent and to understand the influence of the
topography and changes in land use. It was also helpful, although to a lesser extent, for improving the understanding NFM techniques (mean =4.24) and the potential for using it in the Isbourne catchment (mean = 4.92). Participants
commented that the tour demonstrated the complexity of solutions for the issues in the catchment along with the potential number of agencies involved. Supporting findings from previous research (Harwood, Lovett and Turner, 2015; Schroth, Pond, et al., 2011) this research found that the Google Earth tour approach shows good potential as an educational tool for enhancing communication and
understanding in collaborative catchment management. It was particularly
effective for demonstrating NFM for those with little or no prior knowledge; 71% of these participants rated it 5 or 6 whereas none of those with prior expertise rated it as high.
There was a lack of participation from local residents (only one participant lived in the catchment area) however, the interest in finding out more about NFM was greater for those who occasionally visit the area, 50% were very interested
compared to just 18% of those who had not heard of the area, giving an indication of the potential of the virtual globe tour for early engagement of stakeholders in the Isbourne catchment.
Although from the results it is not possible to determine the extent to which the virtual globe tour influenced the online users’ opinions, after viewing the
visualisation NFM was perceived to be beneficial for the environment, particularly for flooding (96%) and water quality (88%) but less so for landscape views (65%)
and farming (58.5%) where there was greater uncertainty. It was harder to communicate the impacts of these effectively and more effort may be required to communicate the multiple benefits of NFM through carefully prepared text and links to supporting information or explore these in follow up engagement settings. As the Isbourne catchment project progresses the virtual globe tour format offers the potential to incorporate additional spatial information, as it becomes available. It could also be used to identify designated locations for NFM approaches but would be less effective for visualising future scenarios, such as showing specific NFM measures in the landscape. The work conducted in this research showed that adding vegetation and tree models into the landscape in Google Earth is not straightforward and they lack the visual realism possible with more sophisticated 3D landscape visualisation software. In-channel or floodplain measures would also be difficult to represent using 3D models at suitable scales.
Programming experience was not required to learn KML scripting. It was possible to design and construct a virtual globe tour using a combination of elements to incorporate and style external spatial data in Google Earth and to customise navigation, viewing angles, text and images. The approach was accessible, but it was time-consuming and, beyond the addition of basic features, complex to create, as previously noted by Schroth, Pond, et al. (2011). The understanding and use of GIS is invaluable for manipulating external spatial data efficiently to use in custom Google Earth tours. With the wide range of overlapping spatial data incorporated in the final technical tour, there was too much information to show in Google Earth in one view. This problem was overcome by animating features in and out of view during the navigation, however it could make future updates to the content or the animation difficult due to the length and complexity of the KML scripting.
Feedback from the online survey indicated that some refinements may be required to the speed of the presentation (mean = 3.1), and to the content used to visualise topography and land use change. Other inherent limitations to the virtual globe tour format are more difficult to address, such as the poor-quality satellite imagery for the catchment area and the hazy appearance of elements during navigation. However, those who participated not only found the tour relatively easy to use (mean=4), but also found it visually clear (mean=4.8) and trusted the information presented (mean=5.3). The highest rated Google Earth elements were the pop-up
information balloons (mean =5.08) and links to websites (mean = 4.88). Users also commented positively on the ability to control aspects of the presentation, including pausing and exploring data independently on the map screen. This indicates that interactive features are important to viewers (Lovett et al., 2015). Less well received were the close up/perspective views (mean=4.56) and the visual appearance of the ground (mean = 4.32) demonstrating the limitations of the Google Earth imagery for the area and supporting the findings of Pettit et al. (2011) along with Appleton and Lovett (2003), who highlighted the importance of foreground appearance in landscape visualisation.
The Google Earth KMZ file was accessible for remote online use, with a file size of 8MB and detailed instructions which had been refined following user feedback in the facilitated group session. There were however limitations to the analysis of the ease of use, due to the small sample size and a high proportion of participants having previous experience of Google Earth/GIS interest and high levels of IT literacy (and therefore an underrepresentation of participants with lower computer skills). It is also worth noting that unsuccessful attempts to download and view the tour were not captured.
The contrasting results obtained from end user evaluation in the two settings confirmed that care must be taken to ensure a broad representation in group settings to capture views from a wide variety of interests and experience levels (Grainger, Mao and Buytaert, 2016). However, the group setting was helpful for observing users, collecting feedback and highlighting potential usability issues and snags in the instructions.