Search

This paper aims at evaluating a method for objective visual assessment of constructions in the landscape based on saliency, which is defined as the distinct perceptual quality by which an item in the world stands out from its surroundings and therefore attracts attention (conspicuity). Photographic simulations of public facility buildings, water towers and transmission towers inserted in a rural environment are created in different designs, colours and sizes. Their corresponding saliency maps, which are computationally generated predictions of the human viewing pattern, are calculated and compared with the saliency map of the original landscape photograph through a correlation analysis. Higher correlations indicate a smaller visual contrast from a landscape point of view of minimizing the visual disturbance. The method can also be used to generate eye-catching designs such as landmarks. The output of the saliency method is compared to human assessments of visual integration obtained using a photo-questionnaire. The results demonstrate that the saliency method is sensitive to differences in colour and size. In addition, the outcome is consistent with people’s subjective assessments. For design differences, this is less the case, probably because more factors than just the visual aspect are involved when choosing a design. The method could thus be useful when scenarios only differing in size and colour are to be compared. It is fast and easy which allows the assessment of many different scenarios and viewpoints. This could be valuable for designing more effective and all-round visual impact mitigation measures integrated in the design of a construction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we analyse how well saliency maps, which are theoretical predictions of the human viewing pattern, are correlated with human focus maps, obtained by tracking 42 observer's eyes while free-viewing landscape photographs ranging from rural to urban environments. The Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated on the predicted and measured pixels’ greyscale values. A relatively high correlation was obtained, indicating that the saliency maps can be used as reliable predictions of the human observation pattern and thus can predict which elements in a landscape will catch the attention. These findings are useful in visual impact assessment, a step in the planning process which is often not well elaborated or even skipped. Saliency maps could, for instance, be used to compare the conspicuity of different designs of a construction when simulated in photographs of the original landscape. As the visual impact of an object is reduced when its visual perception decreases, the least salient design will also have the lowest visual impact and will correspond to the best integration into the existing landscape. This method is easy and produces an objective measure of the degree of visual impact. However, as slight differences in correlation depending on the degree of urbanisation of the landscape were found, this methodology will not be equally reliable in all types of landscapes. Predictions of the viewing pattern in rural landscapes with a limited amount of buildings have been demonstrated to be most reliable. In more urbanised landscapes this reliability slightly decreases but nevertheless remains significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does expertise in landscape related issues influence the way landscapes are observed? In an eye tracking experiment 21 landscape experts and 21 laymen were asked to observe 74 landscape photographs, each for 10 s. Experts seemed to make significantly more fixations and saccades, had a longer scan path and a larger visual span than the laymen. As a consequence, in the same amount of time, experts visually explored the landscape photographs to a wider extent and in a more global and holistic fashion. This is probably due to the presence of expertise, which seemed to enhance efficient information extraction, enabling experts to interpret and understand the landscapes more easily. In contrast, the laymen's visual exploration of the landscapes was considerably more restricted as they spent significantly more time and attention to singular objects, in particular to buildings. This behaviour may be a result of the lack of expertise, which makes longer fixation times necessary to understand the meaning of the composing landscape elements. A slower information processing leaves less time to visually explore the landscape photograph and hampers laymen to observe the landscape as a whole. Consequently, experts and laymen may not perceive the same features in a landscape and might not even see the same landscape. This conclusion is important for participatory landscape management in which experts and laymen are asked to visually assess landscapes. The often diverging assessments of both groups could partially be explained by their literally different view on landscapes, on which their judgement is based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] We assess the effects of climate change on landscapes on the local level using GIS. [•] The two case studies belong to the most valuable heritage landscapes of Belgium. [•] Vulnerability maps indicate that the heritage landscapes are threatened. [•] Adaptation maps show where possible adaptation measures can be applied in the field. [•] To be effective, adaptation maps should be added to the landscape management plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]