Visualization in Landscape Architecture and Planning:

Where we have been, where we are now

and where we might go from here
Eckart LANGE

1 Introduction
Visual representations of the real world are essential for landscape architects and planners
to express and communicate their thoughts. In the past, plans and sections have been
predominately used. Both for the understanding of the general public and the experts, it is
important to communicate a proposal in perspective view.
Recently significant advances in computer graphics have been made and exciting new
options for visualizing our environment in three or four dimensions (with animation over
time or movement through space) are emerging. These advances are of major interest to the
profession. Some of the important developments recently have involved highly realistic
representation of vegetation (PRUSINKIEWICZ & LINDENMAYER 1996, DEUSSEN et al. 1998,
PRUSINKIEWICZ et al. 2001), intelligent display of terrain and automatic generation of
landscape imagery from GIS-based data (HOINKES & LANGE 1995, BISHOP & KARADAGLIS
1997). This technology that exists today enables us to render visually stunning and richly
detailed visual simulations of natural and urban environments. Comparing it with what we
have experienced technologically in the previous decades it can be foreseen that in the near
future even further technological developments will take place. It can also be expected that
these technological developments will be accessible to most people working in spatially
relevant disciplines.

2 Where we have been

Traditional analog visualization techniques for the representation of concepts in planning
and design are plans, sections, sketches, perspective drawings, photomontages, and
physical models. Of these techniques physical models and sketches are the oldest being
invented by humans. Examples date back to more than 30'000 B.C. as illustrated e.g.
through the charcoal drawings of rhinoceroses and bisons in the cave of Chauvet-Pont-
dArc (MINISTRE DE LA CULTURE ET DE LA COMMUNICATION 2002) and models found in
Egypt and early Chinese tombs (see ZUBE et al. 1987). Although having been invented
around 465 BC in Greece (GEYER 1994) it took several hundreds of years for the
perspective to be reinvented in the Renaissance, and to become a common tool in
architecture for the presentation of the final design. The oldest known perspective from this
period is a mural dated after 1317 by Giotto in the Bardi chapel of Santa Croce in Florence.
Within the discipline of landscape architecture, Humphry REPTON (1803) pioneered
visualization techniques applied to landscape design issues. In his famous Red Books
which he used to show his designs to his clients, he concentrates on the representation of
2 E. Lange

proposed changes in the landscape in perspective view, comparing the existing situation
with his proposal. Purposefully, he mostly omitted a two-dimensional representation. Later,
variations of this technique were also used by Olmsted for designing Central Park (see
BEVERIDGE & SCHUYLER 1983).
Since many years, the photomontage is a common technique for representing a proposal.
Due to the technological development since early 1990 the analog photomontage is being
superseded by the digital photomontage (see e.g. LANGE 1990). Unlike the traditional
analog photomontage a digital photomontage can reach a relatively high level of geometric
accuracy. This can be achieved by superimposing 3D-vector data over the 2D-image data.

Fig. 1: Categorization of visualization techniques.

Overall, static visualization techniques (definitions see MCKECHNIE 1977, ZUBE et al.
1987) have been applied since several hundreds of years. Since the advent of model
simulation techniques combined with video animations, a development largely driven by
the Berkeley Environmental Simulation Laboratory in the early 70s and 80s, dynamic
simulations have also become possible (e.g. APPLEYARD 1977). Among the analog
techniques, only the physical model permits free, i.e. dynamic eye movement of the
observer. By using a modelscope, models can even be explored at eye level.
Nowadays, planners and designers can choose from a wide range of analog and digital
visual simulation techniques permitting both static and dynamic representations of the
environment.

Fig. 2: Real landscape, Groer Windgllen Fig. 3: Physical model by Eduard Imhof
 Visualization in Landscape Architecture and Planning 3

3 Where we are now

Only within the last few years sophisticated computer-based technological innovations
allowing to work in three and four dimensions have been introduced (e.g. LANGE 1994).
From a modeling point-of-view, landscapes are highly complex structures covering large
areas. Looking at the real landscape the most important variables determining the visual
appearance of a landscape are the following:
- terrain
- vegetation
- animals and humans
- water
- built structures
- atmosphere and light
Terrain

Fig. 4: Terrain with shaded relief Fig. 5: Terrain with satellite image

Fig. 6: Terrain with orthophoto Fig. 7: Photograph of real landscape

Depending on the issues or the landscape in question, a landscape representation does not
necessarily need all the listed elements to be present nor do they all need to be represented
in high detail. However, each of those elements could potentially act as a major obstacle for
achieving a representation with a high degree of realism (see LANGE 1999).
4 E. Lange

In the case of terrain representation it is nowadays possible to get high resolution digital
terrain data. What is even more important from a landscape visualization point-of-view,
within these digital terrain models the actual land use information can be represented with
imagery acquired through remote sensing. Aerial orthophotos, which are sometimes already
available now at a resolution of 10 cm provide the basis for highly realistic visualizations.
In addition, the sensors providing satellite imagery such as the newly launched QuickBird
(October 2001) or Ikonos are constantly improving and are already achieving resolutions of
61 cm in the case of QuickBird.

Vegetation
Real vegetation is very complex, as it consists of a large number of objects such as leaves,
flowers, twigs, etc. What might be even more challenging is the fact that the vegetation
elements of the landscape are also very diverse. Depending on neighborhood relationships,
competition for light and nutrients or any impact caused by human or natural intervention,
one particular tree species, e.g. a Quercus robur, can look quite different from the same
species at the same age.
The representation of vegetation is typically either done by applying texture-maps on
simple rectangular polygons or by detailed polygon-based modeling of the geometry of the
vegetation (see REFFYE et al. 1988). The problem with the latter approach is that even one
single tree with leaves or needles can consist of thousands or even millions of polygons.
Consequently this has a considerable impact on rendering time (so many polygons, so little
time).
Texture mapping is a very efficient and simple method to display vegetation structures.
Complex 3D-geometries and microstructures of object surfaces can be replaced by
relatively simple texture maps. E.g. the image of a tree consisting of 256 x 256 pixels can
be applied on polygonal surfaces, so called billboards. This allows a high visual complexity
of a scene without having to increase the geometric complexity.

Fig. 8: Forest visualization from the Fig. 9: Real or simulated. Forest

1970s; primitive symbols of trees visualization project (HOUSE et al.
convey the image of a forest 1998)
(NICKERSON 1979)

Instead of manually modeling a tree or relying on an existing object library, another, also
polygon-based approach was developed by PRUSINKIEWICZ & LINDENMAYER (1996). Their
L-System, which allows the rendering of photorealistic plants is based on a formal language
 Visualization in Landscape Architecture and Planning 5

describing the natural growth of the plants. DEUSSEN et al. (1998) developed a system
allowing the rendering of highly realistic scenes where the complexity of a visual
representation of plant ecosystems is addressed by combining the use of different levels of
abstraction at different stages of the modeling and rendering pipeline, procedural modeling,
approximate instancing and the employment of space- and time-efficient rendering
techniques. HOUSE et al. (1998) who created a very convincing computer-generated
walkthrough of an existing forest conclude that there is a need for hierarchical level-of-
detailing modeling and rendering when working with natural scenes.

Animals and humans

Animals and humans are often omitted in visualizations. From a broader ecological view
they need to be represented as they are an important factor shaping the landscape and
influencing human visual perception of the landscape. Beyond the physical landscape
attributes, especially the presence or absence of animals in the real landscape can influence
an evaluation. WALTER et al. (2001) present a research approach, which automatically
produces mammalian models with individual bodies at different ages and their associated
coat patterns.
In contrast to vegetation elements, what is especially complicating a representation, is the
aspect of movement through space, as illustrated by the virtual oceanarium which permits
to explore several aquatic ecosystems from around the world in a slightly lower degree of
realism, but in 3D stereo projection (see FRHLICH 2000).
MAGNENAT-THALMANN & THALMANN (e.g. 2001) pioneered the area of character
animation already some decades ago. Virtual humans that deform themselves during
motion are called deformable avatars. Nowadays, not only virtual stewardesses are
explaining safety measures on aircrafts, we also get to see movies with highly realistic
actors such as in Shrek (2001) or Final Fantasy (2001). With an enormous input of man and
computing power, even the subtle expression of moods or the gravitational behavior of hair
is possible to visualize.

Water
Water sometimes may appear static such as a lake surface on a quiet morning. However,
water is a very dynamic landscape element. Water in the landscape usually takes many
forms such as rushing streams, waterfalls, waves, etc. It is also producing complex
interaction with the terrain in which the water is moving. In 1986 FOURNIER & REEVES
modeled ocean waves where the disturbing force is from the wind and the restoring force
from gravity. Even the foam generated by the breakers was modeled by particle systems.
This concept is now integrated in standard software running on PCs such as Maya allowing
particles to react with dynamic fields such as gravity, wind and turbulences.

Built structures
In many landscape types the role of built structures for the visual quality of a landscape is
significant. Integrating built objects in a virtual environment is typically a very labor-
intensive process. Nowadays, nearly all new architectural proposals are constructed with
CAD. However, from a planning perspective it is equally important to include the
surroundings as well. Typically these existing buildings are not available digitally. Some
cities, e.g. the city of Basel/Switzerland already work with a 3D city model on a citywide
scale. For other cases BECK & STEIDLER (2001) present a new efficient approach to record
6 E. Lange

existing built-objects. Their approach is based on a semi-automated generation of 3D-

objects of the built environment, which allows the fitting of planar structures to a measured
set of point clouds. Terrestrial 3D laser scanning such as the Cyrax 2500 (CYRA) is a new
interesting alternative for the data collection of a small number of buildings. This
technology provides a point cloud with numerous data.

Atmosphere and light

The color and appearance of the above named landscape elements can vary greatly under
different atmospheric conditions. This is due to various influences, such as the position and
the related intensity of the sun, objects obscuring the light source and general atmospheric
or weather conditions.
In 1985, REEVES & BLAU successfully used particle systems for the visualization of
vegetation elements. Nowadays the typical applications for this method include the
visualization of atmospheric effects, such as snow and rain. This option is available in
several commercial software packages.
The two most popular methods for calculating realistic images are radiosity and ray tracing.
Both methods compute the effects of lighting and can output images in photorealistic
quality. With raytracing, scenes of extreme complexity (e.g. specular reflections and
transparency) can be simulated highly effectively, while e.g. for scenes with very high
numbers of light sources or diffuse lighting the radiosity approach has some advantages.
For some examples showing the visualization of lighting effects under natural sunlight
conditions see e.g. KANEDA et al. (1991) and NAKAMAE et al. (2001).

4 Where we might go from here

Having illustrated the current status of landscape visualization, research and development
in the field of landscape visualization might be concentrating on several different directions
in the future. Research, mainly in computer science, so far has concentrated on
technological issues and incredible advances have been made. However, perceptual and
societal issues of visualization have been hardly touched (see LANGE 1999, BISHOP et al.
2001) in landscape visualization research.

Perceptual and societal issues

Because landscapes are highly complex landscape visualizations can be incredibly
laborious. On the other hand, the omission of details of the real landscape makes for a
certain sterility of virtual landscapes (see ERVIN 2001). Therefore, from a practical,
planning-related point-of-view, questions still to be answered should concentrate on how
much reality is needed and how much abstraction is allowed? What is the difference in
terms of perception between naturalism (looking like) and realism. DANIEL & MEITNER
(2001, p. 69) suggest that more abstract representations appear to be inappropriate for
determining landscape aesthetic / scenic beauty values. An important question for further
research is to determine what representations are necessary and sufficient to achieve valid
indications of the effects of particular environmental conditions and characteristics on
specified behavioral, perceptual or valuation responses.
For many years now, digital visualizations have been used in planning. They are still
considered in most cases as the icing on the cake. For example the visualizations are often
 Visualization in Landscape Architecture and Planning 7

considered as the pretty pictures produced at the end of a linear planning process. However
that I am convinced the greatest potential of landscape visualization lies in an early
integration in the planning process. Only if the (pretty) pictures are an integrated and
integrating part of the planning process can we expect better and more informed results.
Perhaps the most important reason why this scenario has not happened yet, is the lack of
user-friendly and intuitive software tools for easy manipulation and design of the landscape
(as proposed by ZALF 2002). Until today, visualization requires a high level of specialized
skills thereby limiting a widespread application in practice. Another reason of similar
importance is the lack of coupling a visual representation with underlying landscape
functions and effects (as e.g. shown by HEHL-LANGE 2001) or political processes causing
the specific visual appearance of the landscape. These processes could for example be
expressed through alternative land development policies as formulated in words, tabular or
diagrammatic information which then directly translate in an exploration of different
scenarios in 3D (see e.g. KWARTLER & BERNARD 2001).

Technological issues
Among the many different technological advances which might happen in the future it can
be expected that major improvements will happen in relation to internet-based 3D-
visualization, immersion technology, and augmented reality.

Fig. 10: VRML-model of Schwyz

For some years now the internet has become an integral part of everyday life for many
people. It is mostly used for sending and receiving text and image data. Furthermore, it is
also possible to use 3D-data. The established technology to enable the presentation of three-
dimensional images on the Internet is VRML (Virtual Reality Modeling Language). On the
8 E. Lange

assumption that access to the internet will be ubiquitous, the use of VRML-models in
landscape architecture and planning from a communication point-of-view provides easy
access to planning-related information (LANGE 2001). This way, planning will not be
restricted to just two dimensions. By using a 3D VRML-model, interested citizens are not
just offered predetermined viewpoints as in reports. They can also view proposals from any
viewpoint they like.
Taking this concept further, the new BLUE-C project at ETH Zrich is even aiming
towards a collaborative approach within an immersive environment linking two immersive
facilities via a high-speed connection. The BLUE-C will support fully three-dimensionally
rendered human inlays, supporting motion and speech in real time.
Pioneered by the military and automobile industry virtual reality has begun to be accessible
to landscape architecture and planning. What is considered virtual reality is typically a three
dimensional (stereoscopic) and visually immersive representation achieved by completely
immersive CAVE technology (see CRUZ-NEIRA et al. 1993), virtual workbenches or a
relatively affordable stereo projection in conjunction with shutter glasses. DANAHY (2001,
p. 125) emphasizes that the dynamic qualities of looking around, ... using ones peripheral
vision, and focusing with foveal vision on objects of attention are fundamental to a persons
visual experience in landscape.
There are also haptic interfaces available such as force feedback devices simulating for
example the haptic experience when opening a virtual door, pushing a virtual button or
when using a virtual scalpel in a distributed medical VR environment. Other senses such as
addressed in flight simulators at 1:1 scale are still mainly neglected. BROOKS (1999) gives a
personal assessment of the state of the VR art. He concludes that VR that used to almost
work until some years ago now barely works.

Fig. 11: Visdome at ETH Zrich Fig. 12: Mobile Augmented Reality
(Immersive facility) Systems (NAVAL RESEARCH
LABORATORY 2001, HLLERER et
al. 2001)

Instead of trying to completely simulate the sensual experience, which will always be
difficult because of the complexity of our environment, augmented reality (AR) follows a
different approach. According to AZUMA et al. (2001) an AR system combines real and
virtual objects in a real environment. It runs in real-time and aligns real and virtual objects
with each other. In contrast to VR applications, the user does not experience a merely
 Visualization in Landscape Architecture and Planning 9

synthetic world. This way the user can experience the real world with changes shown by
computer-generated objects (augmentations) being displayed graphically.
AR systems are currently developed mainly for the military and medical sector. In the
planning disciplines they will allow to study proposed changes to the landscape on-site,
permitting a complete sensual experience with a visual augmentation by utilizing miniature
displays integrated in eyewear (e.g. MicroOptical) showing potential changes in the
landscape. A calibration followed by a dynamic superimposition procedure to bring virtual
objects with real objects in register is essential (see ROLLAND et al 2002). At this point
especially the calibration process is not yet resolved (see YOU et al. 1999). Tracking the
locations and orientations of objects in an environment is the biggest obstacle to building
effective augmented reality systems.

5 Conclusion
Despite of ever occurring technical difficulties of minor or major importance in conjunction
with landscape visualization, there is no doubt that visualization technology will make
considerable progress in the near future. The question is whether landscape architecture and
planning will take advantage of the opportunities these technologies are offering.

6 Bibliography
Appleyard, D. (1977): Understanding Professional Media: Issues, Theory and a Research
Agenda. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California,
Berkeley, Reprint No. 150 from Human Behavior and Environment 2, 43-88.
Azuma, R., Y. Baillot, R. Behringer, S. Feiner, S. Julier & B. MacIntyre (2001): Recent
advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 21, 6,
34-47.
Beck, M. & F. Steidler (2001): CyberCity Modeler und TerrainView Werkzeuge zur
Visualisierung von 3D-Stadt- und Werksmodellen. VPK Vermessung, Photogrammetrie,
Kulturtechnik 7 / 2001, 472-476.
Beveridge, C.E. & D. Schuyler (1983): The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted. Vol. 3,
Creating Central Park, 1857-1861. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, London,
470 pp.
Bishop, I.D., & C. Karadaglis (1997): Linking modelling and visualisation for natural
resources management. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24, 345-
358.
Bishop, I.D., W.-S. Ye & C. Karadaglis (2001): Experiential approaches to perceptual
response in virtual worlds. Spec. Issue, Our Visual Landscape. Landscape and Urban
Planning 54, 115-123.
blue-c: http://blue-c.ethz.ch/
Brooks, F.P. Jr. (1999): What's real about virtual reality? IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications. Vol. 19, 6, 16-27.
Cruz-Neira, C., D.J. Sandin & T.A. DeFanti (1993): Surround-screen projection-based
virtual reality: The design and implementation of the CAVE. Computer Graphics
Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, ACM SIGGRAPH, 135-142.
10 E. Lange

Cyra: Cyra Technologies. http://www.cyra.com.

Danahy, J.W. (2001): Technology for dynamic viewing and peripheral vision in landscape
visualization. Spec. Issue, Our Visual Landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 54,
125-137.
Daniel, T.C. & M.J. Meitner (2001): Representational validity of landscape visualizations:
the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 21, 61-72.
Deussen, O., P. Hanrahan, B. Lintermann, R. Mech, M. Pharr & P. Prusinkiewicz (1998):
Realistic Modeling and Rendering of Plant Ecosystems. Computer Graphics
Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, ACM SIGGRAPH, 275-286.
Ervin, S.M. (2001): Digital landscape modeling and visualization: A research agenda.
Spec. Issue, Our Visual Landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 54, 49-62.
Final Fantasy (2001): http://www.finalfantasy.com/
Fournier, A. & W.T. Reeves (1986): A Simple Model of Ocean Waves. ACM SIGGRAPH
Computer Graphics, Proc. 13th ann. Conf. on Computer graphics and interactive
techniques, SIGGRAPH' 86, Vol. 20, 4, 75-84.
Frhlich, T. (2000): The virtual oceanarium. Communications of the ACM. Vol. 43, No. 7,
94-101.
Geyer, B. (1994): Scheinwelten. Die Geschichte der Perspektive. Seemann, Leipzig.
Hehl-Lange, S. (2001): Structural elements of the visual landscape and their ecological
functions. Spec. Issue, Our Visual Landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 54, 105-
113.
Hoinkes, R. & E. Lange (1995): 3D for Free. Toolkit Expands Visual Dimensions in GIS.
GIS World Vol.8, No.7, 54-56.
Hllerer, T., S. Feiner, D. Hallaway, B. Bell, M. Lanzagorta, D. Brown, S. Julier, Y. Baillot
& L. Rosenblum (2001): User interface management techniques for collaborative
mobile augmented reality. Computers & Graphics, Vol. 25, 5, 799-810.
House, D.H., G.S. Schmidt, A.A. Scott & M. Kitagawa DeLeon (1998): Visualizing a Real
Forest. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, January/February, 1998, 12-15.
Kaneda, K., T. Okamoto, E. Nakamae & T. Nishita (1991): Photorealistic image synthesis
for outdoor scenery under various atmospheric conditions. The visual computer 7, 247-
258.
Kwartler, M. & R.N. Bernard (2001): CommunityViz: An integrated planning support
system. In: R. K. Brail & R. E. Klosterman (eds.): Planning support systems. ESRI
Press, Redlands, 285-308.
Lange, E. (1990): Vista Management in Acadia National Park. Landscape Urban Plann. 19,
353-376.
Lange, E. (1994): Integration of Computerized Visual Simulation and Visual Assessment in
Environmental Planning. Landscape Urban Plann. 30, 99-112.
Lange, E. (1999): Realitt und computergesttzte visuelle Simulation. Eine empirische
Untersuchung ber den Realittsgrad virtueller Landschaften am Beispiel des Talraums
Brunnen / Schwyz. ORL-Berichte Nr. 106, VDF, Zrich, 176 pp.
Lange, E. (2001): Prospektive 3D-Visualisierungen der Landschaftsentwicklung als
Grundlage fr einen haushlterischen Umgang mit der Ressource Landschaft. Natur
und Landschaft, 76 (12), 513-519.
Magnenat-Thalmann, N. & D. Thalmann eds. (2001): Deformable avatars. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, 247 pp.
 Visualization in Landscape Architecture and Planning 11

McKechnie, G.E. (1977): Simulation Techniques in Environmental Psychology. In: D.

Stokols (Editor): Perspectives on Environment and Behavior. Theory, Research, and
Applications. Plenum Press, New York, 169-189.
MicroOptical Corporation: http://www.microopticalcorp.com/
Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication (2002): The cave of Chauvet-Pont-dArc.
http://www.culture.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/index.html
Nakamae, E., X. Qin & K. Tadamura (2001): Rendering of landscapes for environmental
assessment. Spec. Issue, Our Visual Landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 54, 19-
32.
Naval Research Laboratory (2001): Mobile Augmented Reality Systems.
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/graphics/projects/siggraph2001-etech/
Nickerson, D.B. (1979): Sightline, Perspective Plot, Scope - Three Desktop Computer
Programs for Forest Landscape Design. J. of Forestry, Jan., 14-17.
Prusinkiewicz, P. & A. Lindenmayer (1996): The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants. Springer,
New York, 228 S.
Prusinkiewicz, P., L. Mndermann, R. Karwowski & B. Lane (2001): The use of positional
information in the modeling of plants. Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual
Conference Series, ACM SIGGRAPH, 289-300.
Reeves, W.T. & R. Blau (1985): Approximate and probabilistic algorithms for shading and
rendering structured particle systems. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, Proc.
12th ann. Conf. on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, SIGGRAPH' 85. Vol.
19, 3, 313-322.
Reffye de, P., C. Edelin, J. Franon, M. Jaeger & C. Puech (1988): Plant Models Faithful to
Botanical Structure and Development. SIGGRAPH 88, Computer Graphics, Vol. 22,
Nr. 4, Aug., 151-158.
Repton, H. (1803): Observations on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening:
Including some Remarks on Grecian and Gothic Architecture. Taylor, London;
Phaidon, Oxford, 1980 (facs.).
Rolland, J., L. Davis, Y. Ha, C. Meyer, V. Shaoulov, A. Akcay, H. Zheng, R. Banks, & B.
Del Vento (2002): 3D visualization and imaging in distributed collaborative
environments. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications , Vol. 22, 1, 11-13.
Shrek (2001): http://www.shrek.com/
Walter, M., A. Fournier & D. Menevaux (2001): Integrating shape and pattern in
mammalian models. Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, ACM
SIGGRAPH, 317-326.
You, S., U. Neumann & R. Azuma (1999): Orientation tracking for outdoor augmented
reality registration. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. Vol. 19, 6, 36-42.
ZALF (2002): Machbarkeitsstudie fr ein Visualisierungstool. http://www.zalf.de/dbu-vis/
Zube, E.H., D.E. Simcox & C.S. Law (1987): Perceptual Landscape Simulations: History
and Prospect. Landscape Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1., 62-80.